Should the presence of nuclear weapons be removed from Urth? Should they be replaced with a less lethal killing machine that can be used as a deterrent? Should we create history by inventing things that the nuclear bomb’s technology helped create, without creating the nuclear bomb idea?
This would definitely allow for current-RPing of wars between bigger nations without the use of nuclear weapons which could lead to the deaths of millions if not billions of sentient life forms, and it is for that reason that they’re hardly used regardless of whether they are realistically to be used or not.
Basically, retcon the entire idea of nuclear weapons in Urth history? What’s everyone’s ideas on this, feel free to comment.
I firmly believe that nuclear weaonry should be removed from Urth because if we can’t even use nukes, no matter the circumstances or reasoning, then they are absolutely worthless. Any strategic value they once had, such as being used to strengthen threats or used to deter threats, would be obsolete once everyone realizes that nobody is allowed to use nukes and thus can do whatever they want to do.
However, if we were to get rid of nukes and replace them with something else, we would need something thats as irreversible, can deliver the same bang as a nuke, and has negative long term effects. Personally, I think we should replace nukes with powerful space to urth weapons as they serve the same functions as nukes once did. Plus, we already have RP’s such as SpaceLab or the Four Days’ War that are/were active in space and we have powerful nations that are already in space. Therefore, it wouldn’t be difficult for someone IC to create and develop the idea of orbital weaponry.
In my opinion, yes as we are essentially forbidden to use nuclear weapons OOcly so their purpose to be used as a deterrent is pretty much voided. However, I believe that we should let nuclear weapons exist ICly as they were a significant part of why the 20th and 21st centuries on Urth were relatively peaceful. We could ICly start a ban on nuclear weapons production during the meeting on what to do with the 1949 Laona Convention and instead create a “cleaner” weapon such as the tungsten orbital cannon employed in the AIW, a powerful alternative to the nuke.
The development of nuclear weapons directly led to the further development of many other nuclear technologies, the prime example being nuclear power plants, the consequences of which would vastly reduce the technological advancement of present day RP. There are also historic RP’s where nuclear weapons have been used, and whilst there is a lot of hype over kinetic bombardment weaponry, a rod is nowhere near as destructive as a nuclear weapon as well as being expensive to maintain, making it more well suited as a tactical weapon.
I am therefore against retconning the concept of nuclear weapons from RP canon for the sake of realism. However, we should at least control which nations have the ability to produce nuclear weapons ICly by forming international treaties of non-proliferation. OOCly, we also need to make sure that nations without good reason to have nuclear programs (e.g. isolationist nations and nations without aggressive rivalries to defend against) do not possess them, stressing how expensive a stockpile can be to maintain.
Sure, to keep with the real world. But to keep up with the Urth world… have terms and conditions applying. IC:EMA believes that nuclear technology should only be used for R&D and not for the development of WMD. So when EMA came they took all of your toys – but no seriously I like Pagistar’s statement.
But what about the issue of enforcement of IC international treaties? Since there is no IC United Nations to enforce the laws prohibiting the production of nuclear weaponry.
Perhaps removing nuclear weapons from everyone and redistributing to those who are most likely to have some with a reasonable amount. Super powers like SH, the MBE, Pax and Vekaiyu would be examples of nuclear states and thus they would be the likely only candidates for them. Lesser powers that have in the past argued their sake for nuclear weapons should have them removed. I think this is supporting Pagi’s argument, it’s valid.
I’m not arguing that only major powers should possess nuclear weapons (though they will obviously be the majority because of cost), but that a nuclear weapons state requires a strong reason to develop them, and a continued threat in order to maintain that stockpile under the pressure of any non-proliferation groups.
i.e. South Africa denuclearised after a treaty with Cuba to jointly remove troops from Angola, as well as signing several non-proliferation treaties.