The STEP High Garden

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, and another question about your manifesto:

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]

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

[Drogue]

I would like to say that, thanks to Herc's generosity, I have been appointed (or elected by the two of us if you want ) Leader of STEP ..... *cough* sorry

My first action is to declare that every 50 turns of the game, we will elect for a new leader. There are to be no limits on how long someone can serve, if the citizens still want the same person, they vote for them.

[Voltaire]

On the topic of Planet Busters; if another faction has them, we need them. It is as simple as that. We cannot ignore the MAD doctrine in this regard, given that the alternative (that being banning the development of planet busters by our government) allows our enemies to use it against us unabridged without any fear of retaliation. No one is saying that we SHOULD use planet busters, just have some for the mere purpose of retaliation if the Hive (for example) uses PBs against us first.

But I think its slightly premature to be discussing PBs just yet, we are only working with fictional scenarios which involve a Cold War with Yang. As it stand now we are at war with the Hive, and if the war continues I don’t believe we will be able to effectively implement MAD. Personally, seeing as Yang would put little thought into using planet busters against us we need to be prepared to invade him using conventional weapons before he has the chance. This way we avoid the development of planet busters completely. Then again we need to see which type of war would cost more lives. If conventional war with the Hive would have an end result of more deaths on both sides than the use of planet busters, we need to seriously consider that the option of planet busters in a first strike against the Hive (granted it is a rather remote possibility that conventional warfare would result in more death than the use of planet busters).

[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?

[Voltaire]

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

[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).

[Voltaire]

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]

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.

[DeathByTheSword]

that is a great idea...preventing Yang to ever build them....but we arent ready for such an attack away from our homeland....we will not be ready in a long run....!

[Drogue]

No, but we have no need yet, PBs are a way off (especially for Yang). And we have probe foils to sabotage his production, and steal and ruin his research. ATM that is all we need to do IMO.

[GeneralTacticus]

You do recall, I hope, that there is a probe action which allows you to destroy PBs. It may come in very handy later on, against Yang.

[Pandemoniak]

DP eradicated

[Pandemoniak]

I concur with Drogue and GT : sabotage when you can, during prototyping, production or the PB silos. Moreover, IIRC the AI dont cheat on distances at Thinker, so we can just check that.

[Hercules]

As deputy leader of STEP I agree about the use of PB's by us. Preventive action will be to the forefront of our thinking. But it is a long way off just yet.