That's HSWS. What about other weapon users? Are we going to have Cassalon submit their proprietary designs to our inspectors for verification? Perhaps it is a roundabout way of getting advanced weapon designs from Aslan? Or, are those rules meant to apply just to HSWS?
How does it square with our existing weapon laws and oligarchic interests? Is it allowed to produce non-compliant weapons for export? Is it allowed to produce non-compliant weapons as long as those aren't used?
This is mean to be a universal system agreed to at least by us, Cassalon, and Xyri. We should work to build consent in other polities and try to make compliance part of our relations with the Aslan we are allied to.
-[X] Write-in: particulate weapons (plasma and particle weapons) must be subject to engineering designed to avoid serious radiological pollution of the combat environment.
Not sure if I understand this part. Does enemy ship counts as combat environment? (as in, the particle beams, as they are currently, cannot be used against the enemy warships?)
Or should this mean planet/inhabited stations/something like that? If sp, it would be good to specify this.
Not sure if I understand this part. Does enemy ship counts as combat environment? (as in, the particle beams, as they are vurrently, cannot be used against the enemy warships?)
Or should this mean planet/inhabited stations/something like that? If sp, it would be good to specify this.
Yes, this is meant to specify inhabited terrestrial and man-made areas-space does not qualify, but space stations would. I'll update the plan to make that clear.
Beyond the issue of formulating our precise rules of war, there's really a huge secondary issue of getting others to sign on to it. We don't have any official position of authority for that since we are very much not the space UN at this time, and even well intentioned polities that substantially agree with our intentions might quibble with some of the precise rules we propose or have their own suggested additions, which could turn attempts to get a single, shared agreement in place into a bit of a clusterfuck of negotiations. It's going to be interesting to see how this goes.
[X] OPLAN: Covering Bases
-[X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons.
-[X] Write-in: if the Aslan break containment and the ceasefire terms, they will be considered active combatants.
Regarding nuclear weapons:
-[X] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
-[X] Other - write in: Weapons or combinations of weapons of sufficient explosive yield or equivalent to produce significant damage far beyond the intended target area or significantly impact a planet's climate through atmospheric dust or similar.
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface.
Regarding orbital weapons:
-[X] Only weapons that meet a certain standard of precision.
-[X] Against identified military and industrial targets that limit the chance of civilian casualties.
Reasoning: I see no issue with (for example) clean pure fusion devices of moderate size engineered for minimal fallout that isn't also present with conventional explosives of similar power, but wish to prevent long term harm to inhabited planets, whether through fallout or through nuclear winter. I don't particularly care whether harm to a planet's biosphere happens by way of nuclear, antimatter or more exotic explosives, or even something like absolutely monstrous fuel-air bombs with blast effects on a scale typically associated with nuclear weapons. If it's putting enough dust into the upper atmosphere to seriously modify the climate, it's a problem, and even if a few uses of such a weapon is probably fine, drawing a line in the sand is easier than rigidly and fairly defining too many.
[X] Plan Primary Focus
-[X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons. Regarding nuclear weapons:
-[X] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface. Regarding orbital weapons:
-[X] Other - Only weapons with limited secondary effects.
-[X] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
I would prefer to have the more restrictive ROE for ortillery, only allowing their use against military targets. I fear that allowing industrial targets opens up a large avenue for loopholes where you can just tell civilians to evacuate before bombarding it, regardless of the actual feasibility of evacuation. Limiting ortillery to only weapons with limited secondary effects without the additional requirement of needing them to be unpowered kinetic weapons was also suggested and I think that's a good idea.
I disagree with the other plans write-ins though, Hard Target renders our entire line of particle beams illegal and I don't think we need any additions to the limitation on fallout or other after effects. I also question what is meant by the Aslan breaking containment. Are we trying to keep them from leaving where they currently are?
I disagree with the other plans write-ins though, Hard Target renders our entire line of particle beams illegal and I don't think we need any additions to the limitation on fallout or other after effects. I also question what is meant by the Aslan breaking containment. Are we trying to keep them from leaving where they currently are?
Hi! The part of particle beams that would be conceptually illegal would be the use of beams where radiological damage was very serious, or even their primary purpose. Our current beam tech could easily be modified to fit these standards by using different particle "fuel". Also, the part about the Aslan "breaking containment" refers to the possibility that they would act against our troops on the ground and violate the ceasefire. It's unlikely, as they are mercenaries within each side's chain of command, but it's still likely.
The part of particle beams that would be conceptually illegal would be the use of beams where radiological damage was very serious, for even their primary purpose.
Easily? How do we know that? How much would it cost to refit our ships? Assuming clean particle beams exist, is their performance the same? How are we getting this pushed past Steenbeck and other civilian interests?
I like this but I will say I think a limit on handheld particle/plasma weapons capable of causing permanent or semi-permanent radiological damage should be restricted.
As written it is restricting all weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects, which should include handheld particle/plasma weapons as well should they cause any long term effects.
Easily? How do we know that? How much would it cost to refit our ships? Assuming clean particle beams exist, is their performance the same? How are we getting this pushed past Steenbeck and other civilian interests?
I'll note here that if anything like real physics is in place, bremsstrahlung radiation being produced at the target is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of trying to damage something by shooting a beam of fast moving charged particles at it. And while neutral particle beams are possible, producing a useful one is going to take an entirely different weapon than what you'd use for something like an ultra-relativistic electron beam. So, I'm gonna go with "it's probably not viable".
I for one am in not opposed of regearing towards MAC based ships that are armored like fortresses and crush everything through weight of close range shellfire.
Though to be honest we keep talking about missiles and torpedoes for our fast attack craft but... how powerful just are MAC and other kinetic weapons? I can't actually find a full source of all available starship weapons in the Traveller universe so I don't know what exactly our limits are in terms of non-missile/torp kinetics.
There are two main kinds of kinetic weapons, which might become three (we'll see).
- Mass drivers are specialised for orbital bombardment, and struggle to hit targets in space.
- Railgun (type 1, this is what you currently have access too) fire an armour penetrating slug across short to mid-range distances. Good for cracking a heavily armoured enemy, though the damage is... average.
- Railgun (type 2, not currently available) fires a whole bunch of slugs really quickly, making something akin to an auto-fire attack. Probably quite good at killing small targets.
I'm not sure that the armor penetrating railgun is even actually enough to outcompete a particle beam considering just how much more raw damage they do unless I'm mistaken entirely on how armor works.
- Railgun (type 1, this is what you currently have access too) fire an armour penetrating slug across short to mid-range distances. Good for cracking a heavily armoured enemy, though the damage is... average.
Adhoc vote count started by 4WheelSword on Sep 6, 2024 at 4:44 AM, finished with 32 posts and 10 votes.
[X] Plan Primary Focus
- [X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons.
-[X] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
-[X] Other - Only weapons with limited secondary effects.
-[X] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
[X] Plan Geneva
-[X] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
-[X] All weaponry
-[X] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
[X] OPLAN: Hard Target
- [X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons.
-[X] Write-in: if the Aslan break containment and the ceasefire terms, they will be considered active combatants.
-[X] Weapons that rely on nuclear fission or fusion for their effect.
-[X] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
-[X] Write-in: particulate weapons (plasma and particle weapons) must be subject to engineering designed to avoid serious radiological pollution of the combat environment-particularly inhabited areas in planetary and artificial stations, colonies, states, and habitats. Spaceborne use, where these issues are minimal, is authorized.
-[X] Only weapons that meet a certain standard of precision.
-[X] Write-in: precision orbital weapons must be designed, whether kinetic, energy, or explosive, to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage.
-[X] Against identified military and industrial targets that limit the chance of civilian casualties.
[X] OPLAN: Covering Bases
- [X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons.
-[X] Write-in: if the Aslan break containment and the ceasefire terms, they will be considered active combatants.
-[X] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
-[X] Other - write in: Weapons or combinations of weapons of sufficient explosive yield or equivalent to produce significant damage far beyond the intended target area or significantly impact a planet's climate through atmospheric dust or similar.
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
-[X] Only weapons that meet a certain standard of precision.
-[X] Against identified military and industrial targets that limit the chance of civilian casualties.
The Aslan are a complicating factor. How does the HSWS treat them? If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons. What types of weapon are prohibited in their use by this article? Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects. What is a legitimate use case for this kind of weapon? Against any target that is not on a planets surface What weapons are considered legitimate in this role? Other - Only weapons with limited secondary effects. What is a legitimate use case for this kind of weapon? Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
Developing the Rules of War
Thus far the articles are as follows: Article I - Convention on the Use of Nuclear and Radiological Weapons: This article covers specifically any weapon that has a high likelihood of causing fallout or other significant after effects against any planetary target, but does not limit their usage in space or against inhabited space-side infrastructure. This would not inhibit the use of particle, plasma or nuclear weapons against space targets. Article II - Convention on the Use of Orbit-to-Surface Weapons: This article covers the particular strategy of orbital bombardment by space craft, but does also limit the particular weaponry that can be used in the role as well. As such, parties will be inhibited from utilising weapons that have significant secondary effects including chemical or radiological as well as the targets that can be considered legitimate under these rules as well.
Further questions regarding the use of weapons includes pondering the utility of chemical weaponry in the modern combat environment. There are circumstances where a chemical weapon may be considered a viable alternative to, say, an infantry attack, with such chemicals being delivered by shell or by other means. However, such uses have been frowned upon for military use for centuries, not least because it is considered likely that a properly prepared military would have countermeasures against chemical weapons and poisons in place. This article will bar the use of:
[ ] Inhalants during conventional war.
[ ] Inhalants and contact weapons during conventional war.
[ ] Inhalants, contact and injected chemicals and poisons during conventional war.
Regarding other, non-specific weapons, there are questions around the development and creation of other non-specific threats that could be considered inhumane, overly damaging to the environment or otherwise unacceptable for military use in war time. The committee believes that these prohibited threats should include: Select as many of the following as you believe necessary:
[ ] Melee weaponry that functions via the delivery of a detachable or internally delivered explosive.
[ ] Melee weaponry that functions via the usage of a 'chain' or motorised cutting teeth.
[ ] Projectile weaponry that causes significant surface and internal injury such as flechette rounds.
[ ] Projectile weaponry that relies on small calibre explosives such as specific ammunition for personal rifles and sidearms.
[ ] Weaponry intended to or in addition to their primary function may cause blindness or deafness (temporary or permanent).
[ ] Weaponry that is intended to or in addition to their primary function may cause harm through heating, cooling or flame.
[ ] Weaponry that is intended to or in addition to their primary function may cause harm through radiological or nuclear effects.
[ ] Weaponry that is likely to cause ongoing harm or collateral damage through unexploded ordnance including bomblets and mine dispensers.
[ ] Weaponry that is designed to reduce or eliminate the presence of a breathable atmosphere on or around a target.
[ ] Other - write in.
There have also been questions raised about the potential for significant enough weapons to cause the collapse of a planets ecosystem, biosphere or to otherwise render it unliveable for the local population. This is not considered a significant concern at this time due to most inhabited planets relying on atmosphere-containing domes in order to maintain a population, however there are some threats that may nonetheless be considered to fall under this article. The major deployment of 'doomsday devices' would be prohibited under this article of the conventions and would cover Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and other non-standard considerations including nanotechnology, world-killers (such as super lasers, tectonic bombs and geo-engineering weapons) and sun-killers. This article must proscribe:
[ ] The use of such weapons in sufficient quantities to cause planetcide.
[ ] The development of such weapons for military use.
[ ] The theoretical research into such weapons or technologies that may contribute to such weapons.
[ ] Other - write in.
Please present any votes as a plan. Voting opens at
I hope you' re all having fun, because I think developing the in universe geneva conventions is a really good time actually.
I defaulted to copying the legitimate use cases of nuclear weapons, but I have to ask why people chose to allow their use against any targets that aren't on a planets surface? Is there an expectation that fallout would not result from their use in orbit? Because I am eyeing the option below it that restricts their use to only military targets that are not orbiting an inhabited planet and would expect there to be a good reason for that. And I have been ninja'd by the update while writing this so will address that later.
There are two main kinds of kinetic weapons, which might become three (we'll see).
- Mass drivers are specialised for orbital bombardment, and struggle to hit targets in space.
- Railgun (type 1, this is what you currently have access too) fire an armour penetrating slug across short to mid-range distances. Good for cracking a heavily armoured enemy, though the damage is... average.
- Railgun (type 2, not currently available) fires a whole bunch of slugs really quickly, making something akin to an auto-fire attack. Probably quite good at killing small targets.
In "Far Side of Nowhere" expansion for Deepnight Revelation there is a fourth type of weapons, "Mass Driver Cannons". Which are anti-ship massdrivers developed by one lower-TL local faction there. (There are several cool lower-TL techs in those supplements IIRC)
[ ] Melee weaponry that functions via the delivery of a detachable or internally delivered explosive.
[ ] Melee weaponry that functions via the usage of a 'chain' or motorised cutting teeth.
[ ] Projectile weaponry that causes significant surface and internal injury such as flechette rounds.
[ ] Projectile weaponry that relies on small calibre explosives such as specific ammunition for personal rifles and sidearms.
[ ] Weaponry intended to or in addition to their primary function may cause blindness or deafness (temporary or permanent).
[ ] Weaponry that is intended to or in addition to their primary function may cause harm through heating, cooling or flame.
[ ] Weaponry that is intended to or in addition to their primary function may cause harm through radiological or nuclear effects.
[ ] Weaponry that is likely to cause ongoing harm or collateral damage through unexploded ordnance including bomblets and mine dispensers.
[ ] Weaponry that is designed to reduce or eliminate the presence of a breathable atmosphere on or around a target.
