Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Art Quest Sci-Fi
[X] Restrained Rules
As for the more interventionist plans, I'd advise to include some provisions for the Aslan. If we enforce the ceasefire and at the same time ignore them, it's more probable it'll be seen as us going back on our terms to allow them to do battle as mercenaries. The war would be over before territory could exchange hands and prestige could be gained. We would be spoilsports at best and common enemies at worst.
As for the more interventionist plans, I'd advise to include some provisions for the Aslan. If we enforce the ceasefire and at the same time ignore them, it's more probable it'll be seen as us going back on our terms to allow them to do battle as mercenaries. The war would be over before territory could exchange hands and prestige could be gained. We would be spoilsports at best and common enemies at worst.
- Location
- Someone else's head
A couple minor points here. Unarmed ships with a military function such as recon, fleet tenders, transports, etc. being operated by or on behalf of a military for military purposes are not civilian and should not expect to be treated as such. Secondly, we need a clear definition of what "unarmed" means given that we like to stick point defense on absolutely everything.
If it is in a warzone and it wasn't specifically cleared by both sides of the conflict and it refuses to disengage after being warned, it should be considered a combatant.
- Location
- Somewhere in the stacks
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] OPLAN: Binding Wall
Honestly seems kind of wrong to sneak an entirely unrelated matter into a Rules of War vote. Like what, is my plan deficient because it didn't include a vote on a matter the QM didn't ask us to vote on?
Coyote Niff
the most transbian obligate scavenger on the 'net!
- Location
- Misery!
- Pronouns
- She/Her
A: Not sneaking anything in; that's not how voting works-if I was "hiding" the goal of my OPLAN that would be an unfair vote, although I understand your point.
B: I don't consider the Rules of War and the need for intervention in Xyri unrelated matters-that is the main thrust of my OPLAN. This is civil conflict #2 among our neighbors; we have plenty of lessons from the Cassalon Crisis as to what happens when warfare is unrestricted. We can drop onto Xyri with those prior experiences as our justification, but by God we better have a framework of policy to back the intervention up-that is where the Rules come in.
C: The QM has left us a write-in section and made clear that if we as players do not act, the Xyrian Combined Fleet will-and they are explicitly planning to do so with a "limited" nuclear exchange. We as a polity, shaped by our prior experiences, have no reason to allow that to take place and have been openly warned in-quest that a nuclear intervention to force a ceasefire will occur. If that happened in real life, if the US or another NATO member were credibly informed that a nation on their borders engaged in civil conflict was about to nuke itself to "resolve" the war, I think they would have a responsibility to intervene too, if only in the interest of avoiding the (literal) fallout that would affect them.
Last edited:
8-1: Developing the Rules of War
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
The rules of war must include provisions regarding:
-The usage of nuclear weapons - when it is allowed and when it is not
-The usage of chemical weapons - when it is allowed and when it is not
-The usage of orbit to surface weapons - what is considered a valid use and what is not
-The usage of weapons against domed cities where is cannot be expected that civilians would be able to survive
-Rules on the treatment of the sick and wounded in ground combat
-Rules on the treatment of the sick, wounded, or shipless in space combat
-Rules on the treatment of prisoners of war
-Rules on the treatment of civilians in war time and what constitutes a civilian
-The establishment of a right to safe passage for medical personnel clearly identified
-The establishment of a series of guidelines on how to treat neutral parties, especially merchants and diplomats, in times of war
-The establishment of a protocol on the treatment of merchant and civilian vessels in war time, especially enemy merchants in disputed territory at the time of wars declaration.
-The establishment of certain rules and limitations on the deployment and usage of specific kinds of weapons in war time, and their research in times of peace.
-The establishment of rules on the extraction of information, both in combat and as part of wartime bodies such as intelligence agencies, including the prohibition of torture.
- the establishment of rules on "life-collapsing" weapons capable of scouring a planet's livable capabilities, including all CBRN threats and exotic materials such as nanotechnology.
-the establishment of rules and bodies designed to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as standards of military and humanitarian intervention to prevent said crimes, and their prosecution under international law.
Xyri
The strange status quo continues for a solid month. The Xyrian space forces hang over the planet like the Sword of Damocles, held in place only by the threat of total destruction and the strangely muted conflict occurring below. On the ground, the Dictatorships and the Republicans both hold their forces back, biding their time and saving their strength until they see exactly what is going to happen should the other side be the first to take a nuke to a forward position. One of the Aslan mercenary companies - the Abulali Benkosi - delivers a good natured letter of protest to Colonel Chey, informing him that their combat suits are sealed against radiological threats and they see no reason not to let their men seek glory. This letter is clearly the musing of a bored infantry commander, and is not intended to be taken seriously.
Everything changes a month after the arrival of the Xyrian force in orbit.
12y04m00w - Converted troop ships HSBS Aspic Conveyor and HSBS Frantic Conveyor arrive in system, accompanied by elements of the Home Fleet. Each of these interstellar conveyors has been converted to carry two companies of FLF infantry in less than ideal conditions. They do not carry shuttles for the troops and will have to rely on slow and steady deployments via airlock seals. Nonetheless, the arrival of these two ships - and the promise of more and more troops as time going on - allows the Task Force to begin Operation Binding Wall.
-
12y04m01w - With zero encryption, the Task Force transmits the intention for the establishment of three FOB's on the surface of Xyri, spread along a 'line of demarcation' between Dictatorship and Republican forces. Each will be based in a half ruined township or mining facility, each will be occupied by a full company of FLF infantry (deployed one platoon at a time by available shuttles), and their primary mission will be to cut off the main routes of advance for both forces.
The first drops plunge down towards the planet under fire. SAM and triple-A sites open up, scaring pilots and forcing them to dump countermeasures all the way down. Before they begin their ascent, a conventional strike operation is conducted by the frigates of the Task Force on station, pounding identified sites with conventional warhead missiles until there is nothing moving. It is thought that at least one of these sites may have contained a headquarters facility for Republican forces.
Simultaneously to this, the Interstellar Cruisers assigned to the Task Force move into close station keeping orbits with the Xyrian fleet and - with weapons hot - order them to stand down and relinquish all stocks of nuclear weapons to the Task Force. Seeing the deployment of infantry to the surface and the broadcasts of intent, the Xyrian forces comply. Commander Villeneuve is invited aboard the HSWS Perkūnas as a guest of Colonel Chey.
-
12y04m02w - The two HSBS ships return to Home with the intention of bringing additional ground forces to the combat zone. There are now ten platoons or two and a half companies of FLF infantry including two platoons of rangers operating on the surface of Xyri. The rangers begin a series of rapid raid-capture missions against facilities that are rumoured to hold armouries of the man portable plasma weapon (hereon: Plasma Weapon, Infantry Support) and are succesful in capturing several examples with minimal casualties. However, at least one raid is stumped when they are met by a force of Aslan infantry in full combat gear, maintaining an armoury that is considered theirs. A tense stand off is only defused with orders from above for the rangers to pull out.
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.
[ ] They are still active combatants. Treat them as such.
[ ] Other - write in.
Developing the Rules of War
The usage of nuclear and non-nuclear radiological weapons - A complex topic that revolves around what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction, what constitutes a nuclear weapon and what is allowed to be deployed where. What follows are a series of questions posed to the committee in order to help establish these questions and define their usage.
What types of weapon are prohibited in their use by this article?
[ ] Weapons that rely on nuclear fission or fusion for their effect.
[ ] Weapons that create or rely on radioactive particulates in the course of their use.
[ ] Weapons that have a high likelihood of causing radioactive fallout or other after effects.
[ ] Other - write in.
What is a legitimate use case for this kind of weapon?
[ ] Against any target
[ ] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
[ ] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
[ ] Against any defined military target that is not orbiting an inhabited planet
[ ] Other - write in.
Any other comments?
[ ] Write in.
The use of weapons launched from orbit against surface targets - a question that is becoming more pressing with every passing engagement, there are currently no limited on the use or 'Ortillery' or orbit-to-surface weapons other than those understood as part of the ROE of a given engagement. The committee wonders whether there should be limits on these weapons outside of other articles:
What weapons are considered legitimate in this role?
[ ] All weaponry
[ ] Only weapons that meet a certain standard of precision.
[ ] Only unpowered kinetic strike weapons with limited secondary effects.
[ ] Other - write in.
What is a legitimate use case for this kind of weapon?
[ ] Against any target
[ ] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
[ ] Against identified military and industrial targets that limit the chance of civilian casualties.
[ ] Other - write in.
Please present any votes as a plan. Voting opens at
Last edited:
I'm leaning towards the 'radioactive fallout' option. It's not really important how the weapon works, it's only important that it makes places uninhabitable after the conflict. Define max allowed rads and max allowed time to dissipate.
Nuking planets with atmosphere is a clear-cut no, but otherwise the is hiding military installations in civilian areas. Perhaps have set amount of time for evacuation?
Precision is tricky, since there are various factors that influence it. Limited secondary effect is vague, but it's not a bad idea. That said, no reason to limit it to unpowered kinetic strikes.
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
Oh, um. Voting is open?
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
The Aslan are a complicating factor. How does the HSWS treat them?
- [X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons.
[X] Plan Geneva
What types of weapon are prohibited in their use by this article?
-[X] 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?
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
The use of weapons launched from orbit against surface targets - a question that is becoming more pressing with every passing engagement, there are currently no limited on the use or 'Ortillery' or orbit-to-surface weapons other than those understood as part of the ROE of a given engagement. The committee wonders whether there should be limits on these weapons outside of other articles:
What weapons are considered legitimate in this role?
-[X] All weaponry
What is a legitimate use case for this kind of weapon?
-[X] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
- [X] If the war is contained, so are the Aslan. They can keep their weapons.
[X] Plan Geneva
What types of weapon are prohibited in their use by this article?
-[X] 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?
-[X] Against any target that is not on a planets surface
The use of weapons launched from orbit against surface targets - a question that is becoming more pressing with every passing engagement, there are currently no limited on the use or 'Ortillery' or orbit-to-surface weapons other than those understood as part of the ROE of a given engagement. The committee wonders whether there should be limits on these weapons outside of other articles:
What weapons are considered legitimate in this role?
-[X] All weaponry
What is a legitimate use case for this kind of weapon?
-[X] Against identified military targets that are not in built up or occupied areas
As a general rule.
A large part of this is mainly to stop planets from being rendered uninhabitable.
So anything that would cause that like dirty bombs are right out.
As for orbital bombardment. It's really a question of precision and limiting the amount of debris currently in the planet's atmosphere.
A large part of this is mainly to stop planets from being rendered uninhabitable.
So anything that would cause that like dirty bombs are right out.
As for orbital bombardment. It's really a question of precision and limiting the amount of debris currently in the planet's atmosphere.
[X] Plan Geneva
Coyote Niff
the most transbian obligate scavenger on the 'net!
- Location
- Misery!
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[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.
Regarding nuclear weapons:
-[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.
Regarding orbital weapons:
-[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.
FLASH MESSAGE-OFFICIAL MILITARY TRAFFIC-ENCRYPTED
Source: Home Net-Relay, HSWS Central Command Base.
To: Noll, Josef, MWO Delegation 3, Operation Binding Wall-EYES ONLY.
From: Novohal, L. , Maj., Multispectrum Warfare Office, Humanitarian Security Working Group-Home Primary Command Council.
Thanks for updates STOP Good to hear minor casualties from Rangers STOP Find attached working theory from current group-my version of course based in TAXBURN STOP Make sure Chey and co send me their thoughts STOP keep eye on those frakking cats STOP
-[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 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.
Regarding orbital weapons:
-[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.
FLASH MESSAGE-OFFICIAL MILITARY TRAFFIC-ENCRYPTED
Source: Home Net-Relay, HSWS Central Command Base.
To: Noll, Josef, MWO Delegation 3, Operation Binding Wall-EYES ONLY.
From: Novohal, L. , Maj., Multispectrum Warfare Office, Humanitarian Security Working Group-Home Primary Command Council.
Thanks for updates STOP Good to hear minor casualties from Rangers STOP Find attached working theory from current group-my version of course based in TAXBURN STOP Make sure Chey and co send me their thoughts STOP keep eye on those frakking cats STOP
Last edited:
Who enforces that? For this to work weapon producers would need to be willing to send their designs to some inspector. What if the weapon was bought from outside Home-controlled space? Mechanics-wise, what happens if it is impossible to remove the radiological tag from weapons?
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
This bit I can answer: Then you have to find new guns.
Coyote Niff
the most transbian obligate scavenger on the 'net!
- Location
- Misery!
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I can answer this one! The solution is that the military only buys weapons that suit their needs, or issue, NATO-style, specific design requirements that private builders then have to meet for consideration in public contracts! Additionally, the radiological concerns just have to fall within certain limits-see IRL constraints on depleted-uranium rounds, or in-quest the issue of prototype plasma weapons having that massive fallout plume. Manufacturers should be able to build in countermeasures to minimize those effects-these proposals just turn that "should" into a must for both operator safety and biosphere concerns.
Last edited:
Fundamentally the division of chemical and radiological weapons is arbitrary and orbital bombardment might not need specific instructions either.
The real issues as I understand them are:
#4 isn't even limited to WMDs - a conventional attack that wipes out food supplies and causes mass starvation is just as bad as dusting a region with fallout or gas.
The key might be to have general principles of proportionality, discrimination, biosphere security and Not Being a Sick Puppy, making it less about exactly what you used and more about what the effects are.
For example a single ground penetrating nuke as mentioned is quite discriminate and doesn't contaminate much; pumping nerve gas into the environmental systems of a ship is also contained and discriminating but may violate the puppy clause.
Though with nukes the risk is tactical uses escalating to a strategic exchange, or collectively irradiating a region so a general ban may be useful.
That does mean nuclear deterrents would be no longer useful, potentially creating a new age of conventional militarism. Not that deterrence is a sure thing either, since this is twice now.
The real issues as I understand them are:
- Disproportionate destructive power causing collateral damage
- Spreading effects that are difficult or impossible to contain
- Lingering effects that can damage the habitability of a planet
- Particularly horrible casualty mechanisms
#4 isn't even limited to WMDs - a conventional attack that wipes out food supplies and causes mass starvation is just as bad as dusting a region with fallout or gas.
The key might be to have general principles of proportionality, discrimination, biosphere security and Not Being a Sick Puppy, making it less about exactly what you used and more about what the effects are.
For example a single ground penetrating nuke as mentioned is quite discriminate and doesn't contaminate much; pumping nerve gas into the environmental systems of a ship is also contained and discriminating but may violate the puppy clause.
Though with nukes the risk is tactical uses escalating to a strategic exchange, or collectively irradiating a region so a general ban may be useful.
That does mean nuclear deterrents would be no longer useful, potentially creating a new age of conventional militarism. Not that deterrence is a sure thing either, since this is twice now.
Last edited:
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?
You have to consider that enough orbital bombardment could create the same effect as a nuclear winter too.
Via all of the debris they throw into the atmosphere.
It could, but I was thinking more of offshore hits to trigger tsunamis.
Again not so much the weapon as how it's used.
It's possible that weapon restrictions may not be necessary at all, since indiscriminate destruction would inherently go against treatment of civilians rules, but maybe it's a belt and suspenders thing.
Again not so much the weapon as how it's used.
It's possible that weapon restrictions may not be necessary at all, since indiscriminate destruction would inherently go against treatment of civilians rules, but maybe it's a belt and suspenders thing.
Last edited: