Nuclear Weapons in Supreme Ruler 2010 CONTINUED

[Otto]

Yes, it is clear from history that a vocal minority can have a large effect on policy (or more often simply a powerful minority like the Sunnis in Iraq before the invasian, or Whites in South Africa before the end of apartheid), however this does not suggest that it would stop a nuclear response. It took years for the protests of Vietnam to force a change in policy, and I suspect that you would have a vocal majority, or at least a large vocal minority supporting the response. For their to be riots in the streets and a revolution, it takes more than college students with signs and passion. It takes a long time to develop the needed social will to overturn a government, and I do not think that will would materialize immeadiatly when nuclear weapons were used. Which of these two scenarios seem more plausible. Putting it in concrete terms may make it easier to view pragmatically. The postulate of the Pakistani first strike should not be argued, as my point regards the desire of Indians to respond should, for some reason, this happen:

The setup:

The current warming in India/Pakistan relations abruptly ends when a terrorist group with ties to the Pakistani government kills the PM of India. Tensions escalate and eventually border skirmishes devolve into an Pakistani assualt on Indian Kasmir. India responds with much success due to their larger convential forces, and pushes into Pakistani territory. Realizing the cannot stop the Indian forces conventially, Pakistan launches several low yield nuclear weapons against Indian military forces, decimating several infantry divisions (around 40k dead) in an effort to stop their advance, however in an effort to cut off the Indian Army's supplies, Pakistan strikes a railway depot and industrial area near a small city of some 70,000, killing around 12-15 thousand civilians.

Now, the choice:

A: Indian civilians, outraged at the use of nuclear weapons and horrified by the slaughter of their countrymen demand that the war cease, that India work with Pakistan on disarming both nations of their nuclear capabilities, and decide to pressure the UN to condemn all nuclear weapons, even kept in a deterrent capacity.

B: Indians, their anger fed by images of burned bodies and orphaned children, demand a response. Their conventional forces have suffered a large setback, losing tens of thousands and their disgust with the slaughter of innocent Indian children allows the Indian government to foment their rage into a fierce desire to strike back. India responds with several nuclear warheads on Pakistani forces, attempting to avoid civilian losses, although some certainly due occur. Perhaps some minority of Indians protest loudly against the eye-for-an-eye policy, but the majority are too overtaken with rage to listen. Maybe (MAYBE) in 20 years there is a general acceptance that it was wrong to do, but by then the government has already distanced itself from the decision through carefully worded statements and time.

Here is some reading to help form your opinion. It is not one sided in my favor as you can see there is some protesting against the weapons, but I want to say that it is not a death sentence for a government to use the weapons, also I think protests would decrease somewhat and support would grow were a city hit:

(website is http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/chron.htm, but the imporant parts are repeated below)

15 May: India Today quotes prime minister Vajpaee as saying India has a “big bomb.” This is widely interpreted to mean that India has formally declared itself to be a nuclear weapon state. Vajpaee also says that India will use nuclear weapons in case of any external “aggression.” [Otto - Note it does not even specify only as a response to NUCLEAR aggression]

16 May: BJP celebrates “National Day of Pride.” Celebrations at 139 Mandals across Delhi are marked by the presence of party leaders, distribution of sweets among the jubilant crowd, and display of fireworks. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear campaigners hold protest rallies in the Capital, carrying placards: “We want ‘roti’ and ‘pani’ not ‘bombs’, the nation’s priorities are misplaced.” Prominent Indian scholars and writers—including Kuldip Nayyar, Rajni Kothari, Medha Patkar, Praful Bidwai, Achin Vinayak, Bittu Sehgal, Ravi Agarwal, Nityanand Jayaraman—condemn nuclear tests, saying the “need today was not to enter the club of five nations but to get out of the club of ten least socially developed countries. In a joint statement, they say: “We strongly condemn India’s recent nuclear testing, the aggressive jingoism unleashed by it and the insecurity caused by it in the region. Nuclear weapons cause trans-generational and large-scale destruction…It is shameful that we should celebrate an achievement that announces to the world that India is now capable of killing millions of people with nuclear weapons.”

17 May: India’s top scientists confirm India has become a nuclear weapon state, and that the five nuclear tests at Pokhran were a “culmination of a “weaponisation programme” jointly undertaken by the defense and atomic energy establishment. “The nuclear tests have boosted the confidence of the nation,” says prime minister Vajpaee.

18 May: L K Advani, home minister and former BJP president, warns Pakistan “to roll back its anti-India policy, especially with regards to Kashmir.” He announces the government’s new “pro-active” approach to “deal firmly and strongly with Pakistan’s hostile designs and activities in Kashmir.” “India’s decisive step to become a nuclear weapon state has brought about a qualitatively new stage in Indo-Pak relations, particularly in finding a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem,” says Advani, adding: “Islamabad should realise the change in the geo-strategic situation.” Vishwa Hindu Parishad announces its plan to build a shrine, ‘Shakti Peeth’ (abode of cosmic energy) near the site of the five nuclear explosions in Rajhastan.

I hope that this convinces some of you at least that a reprisial strike would not result in the downfall of a government.

[BigStone]

Indian scholars and writers—including Kuldip Nayyar, Rajni Kothari, Medha Patkar, Praful Bidwai, Achin Vinayak, Bittu Sehgal, Ravi Agarwal, Nityanand Jayaraman—.

Hmmm ... seems to me a lot of -kama sutra- authors...

Cheers

Ps... sorry ....it was the forumhack...

[CptBritish]

Meat and otto good argument, and good reading guys!

For me otto's argument is edging ahead; but Id have to admit it also fits most closely to my opinion already.

meat

I sure have heard of it. A poll here would probably support nuclear retaliation, but this is not a good cross-section of anything. Minorities cannot be considered wrong simply because they are minorities.

What you say is true but I don't think that the beli bar is meant to measure what is an ethical war or not in an objective sense. Rather I think that it is probably representing what the majority of the population consider is a just cause.

Agreed, but minorities that disagree strongly can be more powerful than a complacent majority (eg. Vietnam).

Wat about a vocal majority demanding a nuclear strike...
This can be a hell of a lot more powerful than a vocal majority condemning one...

[bergsjaeger]

but in a game its fun just to try the toys out

[Meat]

Again, good job Otto. Always good to see well thought out, in-depth arguments instead of angry, over the top rants.

The India/Pakistan example is good, except for the lack of world pressure on them. I imagine after the first nuclear attack world leaders, especially the UN, would demand that India not respond in kind. They would point out that Pakistan would be sanctioned, etc, etc. In the game, it's debatable whether or not the WM would influence more or less power to influence India (harsher economic penalties of the WM vs. their less 'benevolent' nature compared to the UN).

The options are limited as well. I don't think it's only 'nuke them' or 'hug-the-trees'. I agree there would certainly be calls for nukes within the government and population, but I just can't see it happen very quickly.

On the other hand I strongly agree that it would not destabilize the country internally in the example.

I just went over this with a friend of mine and we've agree that the situation is absolutely crucial. Pakistan/India is plausable, states or provinces in the same (former) country is not so plausable. Maybe the higher level scenarios should have less nuke effects on opinion.

Good job Otto, I think you've convinced me that the effects are too harsh right now. I won't make any final judgement until I play the game though.

Cheers.

[CptBritish]

I just went over this with a friend of mine and we've agree that the situation is absolutely crucial. Pakistan/India is plausable, states or provinces in the same (former) country is not so plausable. Maybe the higher level scenarios should have less nuke effects on opinion.

This i agree with you on not many people will condone nuking fellow countrymen

[Otto]

When it comes to attacking fellow countrymen, I agree that it should be more unpopular than situations which have the added tension of religious, ethnic or historical conflict. However, civil wars can be very brutal. In the US Sherman's March to the Sea was not tempered by the fact that only a few years previously they had all been one nation. Also, I don't think Cromwell was overly merciful in Britain back in their civil war. I do think it would be harder to stomach, so having willingness for nuclear conflict vary for each player combination would be nice (Belli Bar-ish, but perhaps more based upon social and ethnic factors) but one shouldn't think that simply because people used to be countrymen they will pull many punches, although when it comes to nuclear war I tend to agree it would be quite a bit harder to justify.

[dust off]

Yes, great work guys.
For me two of the most interesting, and relevent gameplay things to come out of this is:

1. There is a general aggreement that DAR etc effects should be less for retaliating, or if really pushed into a corner.

2. Some kind of occasional irrational leader AI should be able to press the button. (Lets hope that it's in a patch)

This debate also got me to thinking how nukes have been 'used' since WW2. I've read serveral times that the US indicated to Iraq that if they used chemical weapons during the Gulf War they should expact a catastrphic nuke responce.

[BigStone]

This debate also got me to thinking how nukes have been 'used' since WW2.

Yes... and another interesting thought occured to me...
- how the world would look like if the Abomb was invented say 10 years later- ?

Cheers

[CptBritish]

Probably still at war...

With Russia instead of the Axis powers...

[rasNcas]

This is a great discussion. I think in gameplay terms, the more powerful a nation is conventionally should be inversely proportional to the world's support for their use of nuclear weapons, unless facing a massive nuclear strike themselves.

For example, assume North Korea has two or three nukes, and pops one over Tokyo, one over Honolulu, and manages to get one to L.A. In the face of a continuing nuclear attack, a massive retaliation in kind would be supported by nearly all American and Japanese citizens (and likely most Western/Democratic countries), but without the threat of further nuclear destruction, I don't know that it would be. For the countries that were hit, I suspect turning North Korea into a glass parking lot would be just fine regardless of the ongoing threat, but if Kim Jong Il is out of nukes, a retaliatory strike would likely seem pointless to the rest of the world, and the retaliators would simply seem like nuclear bullies, worse than those who struck first.

For SR2010's purposes, I believe this translates to "don't use them unless the continued existence of your nation/country/region is literally at stake."

[Otto]

... pops one over Tokyo, one over Honolulu, and manages to get one to L.A.

Populations:

Tokyo: 8,000,000 in Central City (plus 2.5 Mil more during the day)
LA: 9,871,506 (very spread out though)
Honolulu: 371,657

With kill percentages of 15% (conservative, I think) that adds up to 2,750,000.

In short, I think that people worldwide would understand if the DPRK had nukes used on any of its major nuclear or military facilities. Maybe not cities full of innocent civilians, but nuclear retaliation against forces would likely be accepted. As least I think it probably would be, with the argument that it was needed to stop them from building another bomb or launching another missle. Also, they already project NK may have 5-6 and resources (given the recent reactor shutdown) for three or four more. In short, once one missle went up all of the nuclear and military infrastructure of that country would likely go down.

[Juergen]

Thanks for the great posts Otto !

After trying out the game myself and playing around with nukes I have come to the conclucsion that the penalty for using them is way too high.
Your country and your relations to other countrys drop far more severe than I think is realistic.
And I see that many poster here share my view that at the very least this kind of internal disintegration is unrealistic.

And as far as gameplay goes...they are unusable.

A single nuke (regardless of yield or target...) will make your domestic and military approval plummet heavily.
In one game my MA dropped from 100% to 35%.
While these levels of approval arent themselves dangerous your damaged relationships with other countries are.
Even a single nuclear strike at an generally unloved opponent (who attacked you BTW) is enough to make your closest friends turn against.
Everyone will outright hate you.

Then you are fighting a war on multiple fronts...End of Story



Two (2) nukes will make your DA and more importantly your MA sink like a lead duck.
A very low military approval (>10%) will make your units surrender to anyone they are fighting against.

Now you are fighting a war on multiple fronts with a military which is incapable of stopping any attack.
And all the damage your enemies have taken came from two nuclear attacks...End of Story


I find the current treatment of nukes in SR 2010 to be very heavy handed.
Both from a standpoint of realism as well as of gameplay.

BTW :
For those who are new the starting thread is here:
http://www.bgforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3640&start=0

[Balthagor]

You could start a poll on what the reaction for nukes should be.

However, I'll vote for it as it is now. There is no way to judge what outside reaction would be if a country today used nukes but I'm fairly certain if a country like Cuba nuked Haiti, the US Navy would be sailing the same day...

In fact, if the possibility of attempts to possibly procure technologies to possibly produce nuclear weapons was sufficient for the US to move against Iraq, how does our model not come off as realistic?

Look at the current discissons concering Iran? And North Korea?

Like it or not, I do think that the use of nukes would recieve Worldwide condemnation and foreign action, no matter who did it.

[Juergen]

Ok,other countries might react when you nuke,but Im sure they will take into consideration who you nuked,why and what you nuked.
They wouldnt just attack indiscriminately.

If there was sufficient "reason" for the player to nuke another then the reactions from other countries shouldnt be as extreme as they are now.

And that is only the problem with other countries...
I find it far more annoying and unrealistic that your own military abandons your country because of a few nuclear launches.
If you are nuking a hated enemy then your own soldiers should be the last to leave your side.

Be sure to read Ottos comments about WW2 and the Cold War,I think theres a lot of truth in it.