Nighthawk419
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,321
sent to Kiwitt
Earth 2010 PBEM
- Thread starter Tigranes
- Start date
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
GPS to Luthor
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,422
Russian corporation Gazprom has expended in 10 cities already 
reaching as far East as Magadan and as far West as Berlin. We wonder how is Walmart doing. Quick survey does not reveal any serious Corporation activity in today's World, but perhaps things will change after upcoming UN vote. Russia firmly belives in making the World a safer place 
reaching as far East as Magadan and as far West as Berlin. We wonder how is Walmart doing. Quick survey does not reveal any serious Corporation activity in today's World, but perhaps things will change after upcoming UN vote. Russia firmly belives in making the World a safer place
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
We'll see.Russia firmly belives in making the World a safer place
How about outlawing / banning Nuclear Weapons, as your own country has been hit by them ?
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Well who ever gets the UN leadership, should propose this at the next vote.
Eclipse4449
Deity
Sent to Nighthawk
Eclipse4449
Deity
What you mean whoever? :cough: :cough: It's me
Its not actually a sure thing, you just have more votes now
Nighthawk419
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,321
sent to Kiwitt
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
GPS to Luthor.
Consideration needs to be given to existing nukes before agreeing to an anti-Nuke ban.
Consideration needs to be given to existing nukes before agreeing to an anti-Nuke ban.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
We'll need to get that confirmed.
EDIT: You need to destroy the ICBMs. The vote only stops new ones being built.
EDIT: You need to destroy the ICBMs. The vote only stops new ones being built.
Nighthawk419
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,321
I would imagine a vote to ban all nukes would also mean destroying/disarming ALL nukes. Not just ICBM's but also tactical nukes as well...
Luthor_Saxburg
Vassal of Civilization
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,455
China is favourable of banning the production of Nuclear weapons to prevent another Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Vladivostok!
,
,
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,422
I was starting to miss this map! Finally! GPS Eclipse.
So we need 51% to pass the Resolution Twelve-Eighty-Four
. There is no option to defy the Resolution and most likely this resolution will pass with rare consensus amoung human players.However when it comes to destroying part Russia has some questions:
1. How can we be sure that no tactical nuke is hiding on some SS?
2. Assuming we can have gentlemen's agreement and new house rule (no nukes) -- AI Israel and India will not play by that rule.
3. Especially Israel (2 IBCMs in Jerusalem) worries Russia the most. We cannot even balance American AI vassal by gifting our vassal 2 IBCMs -- there is no way to relocate IBCMs in BTS
4. I am not sure if I can use admin password to manually delete IBCMs in Jerusalem and tactical Nukes in Delhi
It is clear that BTS creators could code a Resolution which would ban and destroy nukes, but they didn't do it. Perhaps, we should not do artificial things...Attachments
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Nukes be banned !!!
Luthor_Saxburg
Vassal of Civilization
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,455
I would like to give my (out of the game) opinion on this hot topic.
I propose to have two resolutions:
1 – Resolution within the game mechanics to prevent building of nuclear weapons. Humans could vote whatever they wanted, meaning YES, NO or DEFY.
2 – Resolution outside of the game mechanics (just human players) for the destruction of existing Nukes. For me this would be a UN resolution that could be broken by players, just like in real life. It would be breaking the resolution but not a house rule.
I would like to note the following: for me the fact that a nation says it will vote YES doesn’t mean it will vote YES… it could well advertise a lot to ban all weapons and then… DEFY the resolution and backstabb the deal… for me this is acceptable within the game rules! Off course, the other nations might not like this and take action… but that is all acceptable game for me!
So, as to Tigranes questions, I would say the following:
1. You can’t. That is life!
2. For me doesn’t make sense to make it a house rule.
3. If an AI choose not to destroy their Nuclear weapons, then the human UN could decide to mandate one nation (or all) to declare war until those weapons are destroyed.
4. I don’t think you can do it nor I think you should!
I propose to have two resolutions:
1 – Resolution within the game mechanics to prevent building of nuclear weapons. Humans could vote whatever they wanted, meaning YES, NO or DEFY.
2 – Resolution outside of the game mechanics (just human players) for the destruction of existing Nukes. For me this would be a UN resolution that could be broken by players, just like in real life. It would be breaking the resolution but not a house rule.
I would like to note the following: for me the fact that a nation says it will vote YES doesn’t mean it will vote YES… it could well advertise a lot to ban all weapons and then… DEFY the resolution and backstabb the deal… for me this is acceptable within the game rules! Off course, the other nations might not like this and take action… but that is all acceptable game for me!
So, as to Tigranes questions, I would say the following:
1. You can’t. That is life!
2. For me doesn’t make sense to make it a house rule.
3. If an AI choose not to destroy their Nuclear weapons, then the human UN could decide to mandate one nation (or all) to declare war until those weapons are destroyed.
4. I don’t think you can do it nor I think you should!
Nighthawk419
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,321
I agree with Luthor, I don't think any artifical programming is needed for AI's, nor should there be any "house rule" that is made with this. Just like in real life, you can agree to it, or not, but defying the resolution would have its consequences.
As for the resolution itself, the Muslim Confederacy is taking this all under consideration. We are currently not nuclear capable, so agreeing to the resolution would mean we would never have nukes, ever, nor be able to build one, even if other humans should defy the resolution and use them, since they are clearly more nuclear capable than us.
However on the flip side, nukes would be limited and we may feel safer knowing that a nuclear attack would not come at us from Big Brother Russia.
If any other nations would like to convince us one way or the other, we would accept them into our chambers to hear their arguments.
As for the resolution itself, the Muslim Confederacy is taking this all under consideration. We are currently not nuclear capable, so agreeing to the resolution would mean we would never have nukes, ever, nor be able to build one, even if other humans should defy the resolution and use them, since they are clearly more nuclear capable than us.
However on the flip side, nukes would be limited and we may feel safer knowing that a nuclear attack would not come at us from Big Brother Russia.
If any other nations would like to convince us one way or the other, we would accept them into our chambers to hear their arguments.
Similar threads
