[Complex] (6-20) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Forces Everyone To Declare War When Nukes Are Used

[N.Core]

What to change	Current	Proposed	Rationale	Implications
Nuclear Non-Proliferation	All Civilizations are prevented from constructing new nuclear weapons (Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Missile). Weapons already constructed, however, are not disarmed.	All Civilizations are prevented from constructing new nuclear weapons (Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Missile). Weapons already constructed, however, are not disarmed. Any Civilization that uses nuclear weapons will cause All Civilizations (excluding vassals) to declare war on that Civilization instantly. NOTE: Any Defensive Pacts that the offender has are canceled.	This WC proposal simply has its flaws. It's designed to prevent anyone from constructing new nuclear weapons. But, only preventing from construction of nuclear weapons and keeping existing ones simply makes it unfair for those who are unable to construct a single nuclear weapon. To be a successful warmonger means that you should be leading in technology because you want to get better units to crush other civilizations. Having better technologies means you gain access to better units sooner than other civilizations. In a scenario where a warmonger has access to nuclear weapons, mass-building them, and then proposing Nuclear Non-Proliferation is simply a dick move to prevent other civilizations to catch up. This proposal makes it that Nuclear Non-Proliferation is a double-edged sword for anyone who possesses nuclear weapons, and makes this WC proposal have a true goal, preventing nuclear wars.	Any civilization that isn't ready military-wise would think twice when they want to vote on this WC proposal. Even if they want to prevent a nuclear war, they should be prepared for sudden instant war because someone used their nukes (which is probably a great warmonger who has a better military). Being forced to get into a war that you don't want to be a part of is annoying, especially late-game when some players are almost near their victory and can't be bothered by a sudden war. This proposed version of the WC proposal could cause that to happen.

Complex Proposal: DLL + Database Changes

 

[adan_eslavo]

Smart and well explained.

 

[N.Core]

Also to anyone who wants to sponsor this, even though it sounds like an easy DLL change, you have to make sure that the AI behavior to the new proposal also changed. You have to calculate military might for the proposal scoring. Anyone who has a low military power should think twice (or even downvote it) if this WC proposal might harm them in the future because of an unprepared military.

Also, I don't know if I should amend it to include/exclude vassals as well because they could be a vassal to someone as a means of protection. But by having a world against you I think it's better to leave from your vassal status.

 

[Solic]

Would this proposal include some way for tactical AI to behave differently while nuclear proliferation is active? I can imagine a warmonger with nukes would also need to be more careful while the resolution is active.

Instead of forcing war, it could also increase diplomatic penalties, but maybe that's counterproposal territory.

 

[N.Core]

Would this proposal include some way for tactical AI to behave differently while nuclear proliferation is active? I can imagine a warmonger with nukes would also need to be more careful while the resolution is active.

Instead of forcing war, it could also increase diplomatic penalties, but maybe that's counterproposal territory.

Yeah, it should include that as well. So then the AI won't accidentally launch a global nuclear war by foolishly attacking someone with nukes without accounting a global war against them. Just like declaring war on someone with a Defense Pact accounts for anyone who made the Defense Pact, using nukes while this WC proposal is active should account for every single civs on the map.

 

[ma_kuh]

In principle this seems okay. I don't agree with the rationale though, the entire point of building your nukes and then stopping others from following suit is keeping a tactical edge. It may be a dick move, but it's exactly in keeping with its real-world counterpart, so I find it hard to agree with this portion. Also I'm not convinced warmongers have tech advantages most of the time, they just happen to have above-average unit

I will also say, I think part of Non-Proliferation should be that once the first nuke is fired, Non-Proliferation as a World Congress resolution is dissolved. It defeats the purpose of the Cold War-style stand-off if Civ A can send the nukes, aggro the whole world, but Civ B cannot do the real-world counter-threat of now sending their nukes to Civ A. It would of course be ideal that nuking A only would be enforced, but that seems like a lot of extra work for minimal benefits.

 

[pineappledan]

So Nuclear non-proliferation actually becomes MAD?

Yes, nuclear non-proliferation is, IRL, a "dick move". That's exactly what it was designed to do. The US, USSR, and Britain built a bunch of nukes and then decided that no one else should get to have them for peace 'n' stuff, blah blah blah.

 

[N.Core]

Yes, nuclear non-proliferation is, IRL, a "dick move". That's exactly what it was designed to do. The US, USSR, and Britain built a bunch of nukes and then decided that no one else should get to have them for peace 'n' stuff, blah blah blah.

But do they use their nuke to attack someone other than testing purposes? I don't think so.

Even if one of these countries that possess nukes uses it to attack someone, it would mean an instant state of emergency for the world, aka the whole world is against you. Just make it simple in Civ V game by making everyone instantly declare war on the offender.

This proposal isn't to make a "dick move" proposal to a "not dick move" proposal. But rather, preventing civs who have existing nukes from doing such ridiculous moves like using their nukes to attack someone.

 

[N.Core]

I will also say, I think part of Non-Proliferation should be that once the first nuke is fired, Non-Proliferation as a World Congress resolution is dissolved. It defeats the purpose of the Cold War-style stand-off if Civ A can send the nukes, aggro the whole world, but Civ B cannot do the real-world counter-threat of now sending their nukes to Civ A. It would of course be ideal that nuking A only would be enforced, but that seems like a lot of extra work for minimal benefits.

Or, someone could make the alternative proposal by making the Nuclear Non-Proliferation proposal repealed instantly once someone uses their nuke. So then other civs after it can use their nuke to attack the first offender without offending the whole world.

 

[ma_kuh]

But why write a counter proposal if I can try to convince you to amend yours?

 

[azum4roll]

World Congress in game is much more effective than the real world counterpart. Anything can be enacted (sanctions, travel bans) and everyone is forced to comply with the resolutions.

We can just make Nuclear Non-Proliferation block all nuke usage. Button is greyed out with a tooltip explaining why. This is way easier for the AI to score.

 

[adan_eslavo]

World Congress in game is much more effective than the real world counterpart. Anything can be enacted (sanctions, travel bans) and everyone is forced to comply with the resolutions.

We can just make Nuclear Non-Proliferation block all nuke usage. Button is greyed out with a tooltip explaining why. This is way easier for the AI to score.

But then we are blocking suicide missions.

 

[N.Core]

But why write a counter proposal if I can try to convince you to amend yours?

I don't want to change it because my proposal made more sense. You're pressured not to use your nukes on the offender because you don't want to escalate nuclear war further.

World Congress in game is much more effective than the real world counterpart. Anything can be enacted (sanctions, travel bans) and everyone is forced to comply with the resolutions.

We can just make Nuclear Non-Proliferation block all nuke usage. Button is greyed out with a tooltip explaining why. This is way easier for the AI to score.

Sure this could be the alternative if someone can't code the AI for my original proposal, but that's boring. Once you built all your nukes, suddenly you can't use them because of this WC proposal. If someone tries to repeal it (which is probably never because the game is almost over), it's a guarantee that someone wants to use nukes.

My proposal makes sure that there's an element of surprise on nuclear weapon usage if this WC proposal is active. The warmonger is still able to use their nuke even if the consequences are the whole world is against them.

 

[ma_kuh]

You would still get a negative penalty for using nukes in return, I think that's just baseline for the unit right? The change would be that instead of everyone declaring war on them, then you hitting them, then everyone also declaring war on you... everyone just starts to hate you instead. But they would "recognize" that the deal has obviously fallen apart, you're just replying in kind.

I'll write the counter proposal and we can see what the community thinks is better. Your proposal is still an improvement.

 

[N.Core]

You would still get a negative penalty for using nukes in return, I think that's just baseline for the unit right? The change would be that instead of everyone declaring war on them, then you hitting them, then everyone also declaring war on you... everyone just starts to hate you instead. But they would "recognize" that the deal has obviously fallen apart, you're just replying in kind.

That means both of you are just dicks who want to destroy the world, so you both must be hated by the world. The only allies left are the ones who are decided to not use their nukes.
Imagine a nuclear war between the US vs. Russia, the whole world would be pissed if it happens.

 

[CppMaster]

Imagine a nuclear war between the US vs. Russia, the whole world would be pissed if it happens.

Would there be anyone alive to be pissed?

 

[ma_kuh]

Everyone would be upset, sure, but you don't think there would be more anger at whoever launched first?

You see it as a referee penalizing the retaliation equal to the initial offense. I see it as the rules being thrown out the window after the first offense. If someone breaches a contract, the other person isn't held to the terms of the agreement anymore. It'd be like not getting your luxury back when a civ declared war with you. "They are no longer following the agreement, but you still need to because you're more honorable. "

At any rate, I'm not trying to change your mind. Like I said, I like your proposal too. I want the rest of the community to pick which version they prefer.

 

[Anarcomu]

If a weapon is so dangerous you agreed to ban it from use, then yes, I might be a little more pissed towards the one who started it, but I would definitely hate the other too. After all, the one who started broke the deal, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone disobeying the law (as a matter of comparison) doesn't invalidate the law, they just get punished

 

[adan_eslavo]

Would there be anyone alive to be pissed?

Probably not:

On the Beach (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If a weapon is so dangerous you agreed to ban it from use, then yes, I might be a little more pissed towards the one who started it, but I would definitely hate the other too. After all, the one who started broke the deal, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone disobeying the law (as a matter of comparison) doesn't invalidate the law, they just get punished

Truth is that in real scenarios even fake infos could lead to a massive attack.

 

[ma_kuh]

How does this work with defensive pacts?

If you have a bloc of civs A-B-C, and D-E-F, and F launches a nuke...

1. (Presumably the defensive pact is cancelled first? Might want to detail this in the proposal.)
2. D and E declare on F, per the resolution.
3. Does D get a backstabber penalty for declaring on F, having just been a Friend/Defensive Pact partner?

I guess you could have the technical process be:
F declares war on everyone else, not the other way around. That should clear up the D-E-? part of this scenario. Then does F get backstabber penalties in addition to the nuclear penalties?

And actually, following through with this line of thought, it seems like it might be really frustrating for a defensive bloc, who might be relying on F's nukes as protection from A-B-C, would be forced to turn on them as a cause of a resolution they didn't even agree to. It's the same problem as sanctioning your ally, when you'd rather just also be sanctioned with them and continue trading on the side.