Disarmament in future civ game

[minuzi]

Based on current world events, perhaps the concept of disarmament can be incorporated into Civilization. For example, suppose one nation has just finished beating up on another and is in the process of negotiating a "favorable" (Muhahhahahaaaaaa!!!!) peace plan. The victorious nation can impose disarmament (with respect to nuclear weapons). This would mean, of course, no tactical nukes or ICBMs for 20 turns. To enforce this, an inspector, who would basically be a military spy, would be installed without cost in the losing nation's capital. This spy would only be able to access military information, unless a general spy already exists in the defeated nation's capital. If the defeated nation begins producing tactical nukes or ICBMs, the inspector would immediately alert the victorious nation, and the latter would have the right to declare war once again without suffering any harm to its reputation. Any thoughts?

[vmxa1]

I think 20 turns is not worth the trouble in 6000 year game. It could be implement in the game, but it does not work in the real world. Looking back through the last 50 years or so, we see that every treaty ever made at the point of a gun was violated and undetected until later. Look at Hitler and the military build up, look at North Korea, now admitting they started to violate their agreement the day after it was signed and it too us 10 years to detect it.
The first round of inspectors in Iraq (6000 of them), found nothing until a defecting scientist told them where to look.
To make it simple look at Patty Hearst. Biggest manhunt at that time and did not find her for over a year.
How about the woman that was on the list for over 25 years and we finally found her a year or 2 ago.
Never found Judge Crater or D. B. Cooper.

[Optimizer]

You should repost this thread in the General/Future forum at the bottom of the forum list.

[minuzi]

The peace proposal can be renegotiated every twenty turns, so once a rival has been significantly weakened but not completely eliminated, I think it would be fun to harass them and pay them back for all of those ridiculous demands for technologies and resources in the past. In your example of post World War I Germany, the coalition (members of the League of Nations) was not strong enough because some members (U.S.) were not willing to use military force to enforce disarmament. It wasn't that Germany were secretly building up their arsenal. Germany openly demanded the right to self-defense and that other nations disarm as well and even withdrew from the League of Nations because France were completely against all German armament. We shall see, in the next few weeks in the real world, if violations of disarmament agreements are punished. Regarding Iraq and North Korea, we don't know whether or not U.S. intelligence was following these developments early on. Deciding to release this information to the public in order to achieve political objectives is another story, however. I think that adding disarmament might work in the game. It would certainly add to the fun and depth of diplomacy in Civilization.

[vmxa1]

Maybe I missunderstood you. Did you not say we could have disarm for 20 turns? After that we have no leverage other than to decalre war? A peace treaty is good for as long as no one wants to break or renegotiate it. Are you now saying that the disarm is in place as long as the peace treaty is? If not, I would not see much use. I mean renegotiations can lead to war, so I did not gain much.
Further, if the disarm is part of it, I would expect the ability to keep a peace treaty would be compromised. The civ will see the need as did Germany to build up arms and have to refute the treaty sooner.
I can't think of any nation that was punished for violation of a disarmament treaty. They seem to get into a war and get punsihed that way.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I like this idea. A lot. Twenty turns may mean nothing in the BCE years, but you don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction there anyway. But twenty turns in the modern era is a helluva good thing. In 20 turns with my current game I could build the SDI and a dozen Nukes of my own in order to lessen any future threat.

[Datajack Franit]

As in the real world

[Tattila the Hun]

So you fight with nation A, do fairly well, but aren't sure if you'll be able to take them out in time because war weariness or similar. So you negotiate peace, restrict their creation of WMD, while you're yourself manufacturing nukes like candy. Then, after the 20 turns, nuke the sh*t out of them. Whatta heck? No fun.

That's like US-Iraq situation. Make sure they don' have anything dangerous, then send in the troops. Those T-72's won't be much of a threat to Abrams...

[DrSpike]

I like this........a way to declare war when you are the most powerful without a reputation hit. Can't go wrong.

[Jamski]

But when you're the most powerful, and you can impose these treaties, why not just eliminate them ? It'll be easier in the long run. And why worry about reputation hits

-Jam

[Sarxis]

Disarmament has been used in CIV MP. Specifically, in SMAC PBEM games I've seen it happen. Lots of fun, but of course, don't expect SMAC's AI to agree to anything like disarmament.. Saddam styled AI you see. :P

[minuzi]

Hi, Anun. Can you tell me how disarmament was implemented in SMAC? I haven't played SMAC. Disarmament sounds like a very fun concept to include in Civilization, but, as in real life, it is difficult to enforce because 1) a nation has the right to defend itself and 2) most countries would avoid war and resort to trade embargos instead to force compliance. It seems to me that at some point armament restrictions would have to be lifted. Did this concept work in SMAC?

[DrSpike]

It wasn't in the game....I presume he means you could agree terms with other human opponents in MP.

[Panag]

Re: Disarmament in future civ game

Originally posted by minuzi
Based on current world events, perhaps the concept of disarmament can be incorporated into Civilization. For example, suppose one nation has just finished beating up on another and is in the process of negotiating a "favorable" (Muhahhahahaaaaaa!!!!) peace plan. The victorious nation can impose disarmament (with respect to nuclear weapons). This would mean, of course, no tactical nukes or ICBMs for 20 turns. To enforce this, an inspector, who would basically be a military spy, would be installed without cost in the losing nation's capital. This spy would only be able to access military information, unless a general spy already exists in the defeated nation's capital. If the defeated nation begins producing tactical nukes or ICBMs, the inspector would immediately alert the victorious nation, and the latter would have the right to declare war once again without suffering any harm to its reputation. Any thoughts?

hi ,

, why not go a bit further on this , ....

example , two civ's each have 200 modern armor , lets say that at one point each civ agrees not to build anymore , but with the option to reduce the numbers allready build , ......

have a nice day

[minuzi]

Good idea, panag. This could be just like the S.A.L.T. treaties regarding strategic offensive arms and nuclear warheads between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. some years ago. In addition, wouldn't the game be so much more interesting if the United Nations actually had a meaningful role other than as a way to claim a diplomatic victory? There should be some sort of benefit for building the U.N. and being elected Secretary General besides victory. What if each civilization in the game contributed units to be included in a U.N. force? An expanded role for the U.N. would work well with general disarmament of certain weapons among all civilizations. The Secretary General should have the ability to call for elections regarding the prohibition of certain offensive weapons such as ICBMs, tactical nukes, nuclear submarines, bombers, etc. If the vote passed, then all current stockpiles of the respective unit would be destroyed and any breach of the strategic arms limitation agreement would be enforced by the U.N. force. Any comments/suggestions?