The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
BREAKING NEWS: nerve gas found in road side bomb in Iraq
Originally posted by DinoDoc
When someone goes on about Jews controling America, it's an anti-semetic rant. I don't know why MtG had to ask for clarification.
You just prove my point the the Jewish Lobbery call anybody whom disaggress with them anti-semetic and you blindly say I than av anti-semetic because they say so.
By the year 2100 AD over half of the world population will be follower of Islam.
Right... I guess all those fields in France made unusable by the scourge of left-over Mustard gas (which was used in WW1).
Also, given that is is a blistering agent, what is the point of "poisoning the ground"?
Both side use so much mustard gas that it soak right into the ground down afew hundred feet before they realise the ground was poison and only after WWI was over in the early 1930's. They where so much in a hurry to deloy chemical weapon they didnot know that chemical for mustard gas is very stable.
There are some nerse gases that will last afew days untril they breakdown.
By the year 2100 AD over half of the world population will be follower of Islam.
Gas attacks worked at first because of the shock factor-but by the end of the war troops with sufficient protection gear could still fight during a gas attack, though less capably.
There is a reaosn that by the end of the war, big breakthroughs were supported not by simply gas attacks,. but mainly by heavy localized barrages that ended suddenly.
Erh, are WW1 experiences really relevant?
1. Those were blistering agents. Nerve agents are more difficult (though not impossible) to protect against
2. Means of delivery were primitive. Today we have air delivery, which can send the weapons well behind the front, where A. The attacker faces less risk from a change of wind B. The attacked are less likely to wear protective gear and C. may be civilians.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by GePap
And a point I made earlier but ignored:
CW can't be used when it is raining (washes the Chemical out of the air), or too cold (and certainly not when snowing), if it is too windy, or if it is too hot and sunny (the UV radiation helps break down the chemicals)- what a fearsome weapons then! as long as the weather permits its usage.
Until recently weather was a limiting factor on aerial bombardment as well. Could Dresden have happened on a rainy day? Does that mean it was not fearsome?
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
1. Those were blistering agents. Nerve agents are more difficult (though not impossible) to protect against
2. Means of delivery were primitive. Today we have air delivery, which can send the weapons well behind the front, where A. The attacker faces less risk from a change of wind B. The attacked are less likely to wear protective gear and C. may be civilians.
The French Rev leader where thinking of useing chorline gas against the attacking armies from aust and prussia.
Some of member of the GOP control congress want to use poison gases jorning our civil war 1860-1865 the army refuse to use just gases as there was no protection at all and the wind can change direction on you and the cost to manufactore just gases where hight.
There was talk also of useing poision gases durning the Criman war between Turkey,England, French against Russia and the same reason was given by the army on why they didnot like the idear.
By the year 2100 AD over half of the world population will be follower of Islam.
Originally posted by General Ludd
Oh yes, I forgot that it's a 'defoliant'. Such a nice, dainty, term they use describe it, isn't it? It makes it sound so.... harmless.
Your point? You seem to have missed mine - that it actually does have a peaceful application. Hell, nitroglycerine has a peaceful application.
You just keep on believing that.
Didn't you already agree that they did not intend for it to kill people? Thus, how can you disagree with the statement "it wasn't spread over a wide area in order to cause death and/or destruction (of people)"?
I guess the military designed, tested, and deployed it against their enemies for a laugh. When practical jokes go awry...
No, to kill plants, as I've said fifty times. Do you by any chance have some sort of mental disability?
Originally posted by Gibsie
I think the "people" part is a misnomer introduced into the discussion. These are WMD's, not Weapons of Mass Homicide or Weapons of Mass Murder or even Weapons of Mass Killing.
Did you miss the part about a weapon being something intended to kill people?
Originally posted by Sandman
These people have a political desire to group chemical weapons and biological weapons with nukes in order to create public hysteria which they can exploit for their own ends.
You think this grouping started with them? When has WMD meant anything but NBC weapons, except before nukes and biowarfare existed?
Originally posted by Sandman
They're banned because they cause unnecessary suffering. Like some types of bullet. I don't think they should be legalised, since the suffering argument is perfectly legit.
Seems to me the issues weren't so much "suffering" as the high degree of lethality, persistency, and decontamination issues, coupled with the likelihood of retaliation in kind and the possibility of loss of control over escalation of NBC conflicts. The banning of hollow point ammo is a one-off aberration, since many "legal" munitions cause worse damage, then and now..
What about landmines? They persist. They're designed for it. As well as unexploded stuff generally. What about depleted uranium? It's toxic, and sticks around.
Landmines are an entirely different issue - they can be designed to deactivate after set periods of time, or to be made detectable, and there was a strong impetus to ban APMs. DU is toxic, but it is still debatable and scientific evidence is far from clear that DU exposure on the battlefield or in ordnance handling results in higher casualties. The claimed after-effects are also debatable, given the number of other toxic hazards in and around modern battlefields, and limited study.
Patroklos said "it was death on a scale no artillery shell could muster".
I don't see how you can claim that gas was developed because artillery left survivors; if anything, gas left behind more and also didn't damage enemy fortifications. I don't think that it was 'developed' for any reason other than it seemed like a good idea.
It certainly did not have much effect on the outcome of the First World War.
Generally, one weapon system is developed because it is more effective than it's predecessors. Gas application in the first world war wasn't much more than field testing of new technology. Certainly there wouldn't have been as many survivors with modern delivery of VX, and the effect on the war would a bit more pronounced. Airplanes and tanks didn't have much effect in WWI either, that sure as hell doesn't mean that the rifle and machine gun still rule the battlefield.
I happen to believe that the frequency of weapons systems used might have had something to do with their usefulness, especially as the war dragged on (and the primitive tactics used initially gave way to more advanced ones). Gas wasn't very effective; that's the simplest explanation.
Resistance to new technology, and the lack of time to refine the technology given the dynamic nature of warfare is more of an issue. Airplanes weren't effective either, yet they're now the dominant delivery system for every type of heavy ordnance. In the four year span of WW1, there really wasn't a hell of a lot of time devoted to technological refinement of new weapon systems.
You don't just detect nukes, chemical and biological weapons with specialised sniffing equipment. Conventional techniques are used as well, i.e. radar to spot for planes carrying them.
Totally different issues - detection of an attack before it occurs is not the same as determination of whether or not hazardous levels of an NBC agent exist in a given location.
And you can detect explosives with sniffer dogs.
If you want to get that close, and the poor things would go ape****. Do you really think that explosive ordnance is scarce in a combat zone occupied by military forces?
Low-grade exposure; what about getting only slightly wounded by shrapnel? Doesn't that count as low-grade exposure for conventional weapons?
Those pieces of metal hauled out of my arms, legs and ass don't seem to have caused permanent organ or genetic damage.
Anyway, suppose I wanted to group together nukes with conventional weapons. I could just as quickly cobble together a short list of similarities: Creates heat, destroys buildings, delivered in the same basic manner as conventional weapons,
You could probably come up with some cute but functionally meaningless grouping of bacon and eggs with conventional weapons, too. Of course there are some similarities, but not in scale of effect, long term hazards, likelihood of hazards to noncombatants, or potential for retaliatory escalation.
Patroklos said that in order to use chemical weapons effectively, you'd need to use thousands of gallons of it. That entails quite a few planes, does it not?
If you went for air delivery, a B-52 or two could do it. If you're talking artillery delivery, you're looking at maybe one percent as many fire missions by 155mm arty to do the job more effectively than with conventional HE.
Most of this applies to gas attacks as well.
Not even close in scale - you're talking 20 to 1 to 200 to 1 depending on the conditions for use of a CW agent, in terms of rounds fired, much longer in terms of duration (resupply of HE rounds and barrel wear would become a factor unless you had an entire artillery brigade to work with.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by DinoDoc
When someone goes on about Jews controling America, it's an anti-semetic rant. I don't know why MtG had to ask for clarification.
I wasn't sure, given his writing style, whether he was talking about Jews taking over, good white Amurkin pay-tree-ots taking over from the Jews, or nutbags taking over and screwing over the Jews.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by GePap
And a point I made earlier but ignored:
CW can't be used when it is raining (washes the Chemical out of the air), or too cold (and certainly not when snowing), if it is too windy, or if it is too hot and sunny (the UV radiation helps break down the chemicals)- what a fearsome weapons then! as long as the weather permits its usage.
Well, then - as long as you live in a windy desert where it's hot as hell and rains 365 days a year, you'll be safe. Unfortunately, about 98 percent of the population lives in places where there are plenty of opportunities to effectively deploy CW.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
The president declared a cease-fire, and the generals representing the two sides signed a cease-fire.
Then it becomes an issue of formalizing the peace, and when it came up, a month later, to the UN security council, it placed a large number of conditions to make the cease-fire permanent and turn into a true peace.
For you to say there was no cease-fire then is completely incorrect-you keep quoting the president (current), well, he has never claimed there is no cease fire, but that Iraq broke the conditions OF the cease-fire. That assumes there being one, as sort of backed by the simple fact that 99.9% of the time from March 1991 to March 2003 there was no fighting going on: unless you fail to classify that as a ceasation of the firing going on....
Did you plain out ignore the article you gave in your defense? The General who signed those documents plainly says that we they had AGREED on the conditions for which a cease-fire will be made and then goes on to say that in for the "cease-fire" to be "approved" would require Iraq to meet all its commitments in the UN Resolutions. Subsequent resolutions state that this event never occured, again, you are mistaking the establishment of objectives for a cease-fire as being a cease-fire in and of itself and that is not a lie that I can allow you to deceive me into believing. You might be able to live a lie, but I will not. The article you posted as evidence contradicts your entire argument and actually supports mine. How you fail to see this continues to baffle me.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Seems to me the issues weren't so much "suffering" as the high degree of lethality, persistency, and decontamination issues, coupled with the likelihood of retaliation in kind and the possibility of loss of control over escalation of NBC conflicts. The banning of hollow point ammo is a one-off aberration, since many "legal" munitions cause worse damage, then and now..
As I (and Gepap) have repeatedly pointed out, gas (and especially the gases of the time) does not have a high rate of lethality. Gas was banned because it wounds, not kills.
Britain took 188,706 casualties from gas in WW1. And 8109 deaths.
I doubt somewhat modern concepts of persistency and decontamination were at the forefront of the signatories of the Geneva Protocols.
Landmines are an entirely different issue - they can be designed to deactivate after set periods of time, or to be made detectable, and there was a strong impetus to ban APMs. DU is toxic, but it is still debatable and scientific evidence is far from clear that DU exposure on the battlefield or in ordnance handling results in higher casualties. The claimed after-effects are also debatable, given the number of other toxic hazards in and around modern battlefields, and limited study.
Landmines are different; they don't disperse into the atmosphere after being used. If you can make landmines that deactivate or reveal themselves, you could probably accomplish a similar effect for the remnants of a gas that didn't get dispersed, dissolved or broken down by sunlight.
For every Halabja or Bhopal, there are equal examples of areas that have suffered from persistant conventional weapons. I don't consider persistence to be a sole defining trait of WMD. Such a view also seems to suggest that a 'clean' nuclear weapon is less WMD-like than a persistent chemical agent; no matter how massive the nuke.
Generally, one weapon system is developed because it is more effective than it's predecessors. Gas application in the first world war wasn't much more than field testing of new technology. Certainly there wouldn't have been as many survivors with modern delivery of VX, and the effect on the war would a bit more pronounced. Airplanes and tanks didn't have much effect in WWI either, that sure as hell doesn't mean that the rifle and machine gun still rule the battlefield.
I disagree about gas being just 'field tested' in WW1. They greatly refined usage of it, and made heavy use of it, and it was still found to be wanting.
Just because aircraft and tanks didn't have much effect, just like gas, doesn't mean that gas is now as potent as aircraft and tanks are now. A modern delivery of VX would have a nasty effect on a WW1 trench; so would modern conventional weapons. Given the unreliability of gases (even VX), I'd rather use conventional weapons; wouldn't you?
Resistance to new technology, and the lack of time to refine the technology given the dynamic nature of warfare is more of an issue. Airplanes weren't effective either, yet they're now the dominant delivery system for every type of heavy ordnance.
Again, this is not proof of the effectiveness of chemical weapons.
In the four year span of WW1, there really wasn't a hell of a lot of time devoted to technological refinement of new weapon systems.
No.
Totally different issues - detection of an attack before it occurs is not the same as determination of whether or not hazardous levels of an NBC agent exist in a given location.
Fair enough. What about the fact that radiation is quite different from chemical detection? Why not lump landmine detection in there as well? After all, you need specialised equipment and people to deal with NBC issues; so it is with landmines.
Those pieces of metal hauled out of my arms, legs and ass don't seem to have caused permanent organ or genetic damage.
You're lucky then. Or are you suggesting that one can only acquire permanent afflictions through contact with NBC agents?
You could probably come up with some cute but functionally meaningless grouping of bacon and eggs with conventional weapons, too. Of course there are some similarities, but not in scale of effect, long term hazards, likelihood of hazards to noncombatants, or potential for retaliatory escalation.
I don't see how it's functionally meaningless to group weapons which cause explosions and weapons which cause absolutely massive explosions.
At least not any more meaningless than grouping poisoning and asphyxiating weapons with weapons that cause huge explosions and have a side-effect of also causing poisoning.
If you went for air delivery, a B-52 or two could do it. If you're talking artillery delivery, you're looking at maybe one percent as many fire missions by 155mm arty to do the job more effectively than with conventional HE.
Not even close in scale - you're talking 20 to 1 to 200 to 1 depending on the conditions for use of a CW agent, in terms of rounds fired, much longer in terms of duration (resupply of HE rounds and barrel wear would become a factor unless you had an entire artillery brigade to work with.
Assuming no gas masks.
Given the limited lethality of chemical weapons thus far, I'd like to see how you came by your figures.
Seems to me the issues weren't so much "suffering" as the high degree of lethality, persistency, and decontamination issues, coupled with the likelihood of retaliation in kind and the possibility of loss of control over escalation of NBC conflicts. The banning of hollow point ammo is a one-off aberration, since many "legal" munitions cause worse damage, then and now..
Those pieces of metal hauled out of my arms, legs and ass don't seem to have caused permanent organ or genetic damage.
Tweet
Comment