Field Marshall Dunning calls for talks on future relations.

[GeneralTacticus]

Tell that to the UN with regards to Iraq. medicines can be used to make chemical and biological weapons. Also, weapons trading is not illegal. Frowned upon yes, and thus withdrawing trade from your antion woudl be an option, but it is not illegal.

Most amusing. The claim that the medicines could be used to make bio-chemical weapons was completely specious and the only reason it was made in the first place was to provide an excuse for blocking their export.

EDIT:

Indeed, trading with terrorists, though strongly frowned upon, is not illegal.

And since terrorist acts are by definition illegal, trading with terrorists constitutes assisting an illegal act, does it not? (to say nothing of *gasp* violating another nation's sovereignty)

EDIt 2: Added second quote.

[Sheep]

Thanks Drougue, couldn;t put it better myself.
Like the quote Mr.President. Of course if anyone asks about it I hope you do put it into context.

As for uberweapons. They are nowhere near unrealistic.

Battleships stopped really being a major focus of research after ww2. If refined, intergrated and developed more like elijah said uber-battleships are more than reasonable.

While ABM sytems are very reasonable, perhaps 95% is too high. Perhaps 80% might be better. I do tell you now tho that Sheepsta is looking at a sat syetm not unlike the Reagan Star Wars Program. Of course if anyone wanted to help foot the bill, we could both benefit from this nuclear umbrella.

Also AI leaders are not unrealistic. Akiria is the leading nation in IT, in the WORLD. Coupled that with the year probs being around 2050, (Sheepstan years are now 59) It is quiet conceivable that this would happen.

Some people really need to learn that the beuty of rp is allowing imagination to be used.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
What makes a government illegal? OOC: It is Sheeps nation,a nd if he wants to have a revolution and have a dictator, he can /OOC Just because it is not a democracy? It is not for other nations to impose. If there is a problem with the leader, it is an internal struggle, not one that involves other nations. When Sheepsta attacks, or does soemthing else to affect another nation, it becomes international business. Until then, it is a Sheepstan issue.

Noosland fully respects the right of self-determination of the people of Sheepsta. The current military dictatorship is illegal because it came into being by violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, one that represents the will of the people. Thus, it is illegal.

Originally posted by Drogue
No, Sheep said he withdrew from the treaties. That is not retro-RPing. Retro Rpig would be changign what he has said in the passed. Sheepm stated He did not say he wasn't a member in the passed, he said he withdrew.

However, there are no provisions for withdrawing in these treaties. So, by declaring withdrawal, the military junta in Sheepsta in fact violates these treaties.

Don't forget that in a country, the constitution is the highest law of the land, and all signed treaties are second highest (that's why there's such a thing as diplomatic immunity). It might be very probable that the military junta in Sheepsta has broken a lot of its own laws as well, just that we don't know about those.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
Is it unrealistic though? 95% ABM systems are theoretically very very simple. The physics certainly are very easy, ballistic missiles have a course that a GCSE physics student could predict.

Maybe in theory, but they are next to impossible in practice. Otherwise, at least the US, former USSR, and Western European countries would all have them. They don't. The best defense system is Russia's S-400, and it's tactical only.

First of all, there's the issue of speed. You don't have a lot of time to respond, and the re-entrant warheads are very, very fast. All sorts of variables will change the flight path just so much, so that all kinetic kill defenses ("hitting a bullet with bullet" type of installations) are out. Secondly, there are all sorts of active defenses, such as decoys, speed changes, direction changes, etc. Thirdly, you have a small problem when you destroy an enemy nuclear warhead - the radioactive material will come raining down. Lets hope that doesn't happen over any population centre.

Originally posted by elijah
AI Rulers is perhaps stretching it a little, but looking at RL computer capacities, Akiria's IT sector, is it really unrealistic?

Yes. In real life, the only AI that's any good are the chess programs. Chess, as you know, is highly abstract, clear, deterministic, and with a small set of rules. You know all the computer opponents in strategic games suck.

Originally posted by elijah
My battleships use existing technology, but integrated and fine tuned to a much greater extent, if battleships were continued development from 1940's to today, we could expect stuff similar to what I have.

I don't know any details about your battleships, so I can't comment on them.

[Sheep]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Noosland fully respects the right of self-determination of the people of Sheepsta. The current military dictatorship is illegal because it came into being by violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, one that represents the will of the people. Thus, it is illegal.

Once again when Nikos Ginakis suspended the constituion after the parlimentry bombings, the rule of law passed into martial law. When the late President tried to do something against this law, he was promtly removed by Field Marshall Dunning who took his place. This is not in violation of any Sheepstan laws, and you are yet to prove to me where I did.

Oringally posted by Urban Ranger
However, there are no provisions for withdrawing in these treaties. So, by declaring withdrawal, the military junta in Sheepsta in fact violates these treaties.

The Unfied Republic of Sheepsta was never part of these treaties, and that is the earliest point this government could be held accountable too. Any committments that the USS had were null and void as Alecrast marched right on in. Therefore I never withdrew from them, I was never part of them.

Anyways this is besides the point. I have ratified the nuclear non-proliferation pact (3days ago in RL) for the intrests of the region, and have provisions in Sheepstan laws disallowing nuclear strikes unless attacked first. [/quote]

origninally posted by Urban Ranger
Don't forget that in a country, the constitution is the highest law of the land, and all signed treaties are second highest (that's why there's such a thing as diplomatic immunity). It might be very probable that the military junta in Sheepsta has broken a lot of its own laws as well, just that we don't know about those.

The Constituion was not in place when the Field Marshall came to power due to its supension after the parliamentry bombings. signed treaties mean nothing, ratified treaties do. Which is besides the point as Sheepsta did not withdraw from them, they weren't part of them at all. As for my own laws, the current government makes the laws, so why would we break them?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Maybe in theory, but they are next to impossible in practice. Otherwise, at least the US, former USSR, and Western European countries would all have them. They don't. The best defense system is Russia's S-400, and it's tactical only.

Yes, but Akiria has 3 times the military budget of those nations combined, coupled with the largest arms manufacturing industry in the world. The US one, with less than 10 tiems the funding of trhe Akirian system, and over 5 times less time in development, manages 60-70%, yet 9%% is too high for Akiria's. The first one managed 60%, the second got up to 80%, and the CMD-3 got to 95%, due to some new innovations in guidance and propulsion systems. It is very hard to do, but not impossible, given an enormous industry, loads of money and a lot of time.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes. In real life, the only AI that's any good are the chess programs. Chess, as you know, is highly abstract, clear, deterministic, and with a small set of rules. You know all the computer opponents in strategic games suck.

They are powerful computers designed for a task. Far simpler systems have been invented thast 'learn' from their mistakes, and therefore by some standards, are intelligent. They are pretty simple, but it will not be longer before you get one that can both do that and pass the turing test. Indeed, like Chess, many aspects of running a nation are remarkably simple, given a target and a set of parameters.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't know any details about your battleships, so I can't comment on them.

I never posed spec. Pretty much the same as everyone elses, except having a much bigger military, I have more of them. Simple really. With ~8 times the US budget, I have about 6 times the amount, and far higher R&D spending, thus better tech. I find it strange that I put that much money into R&D (more than the total US defense budget IIRC) and yet I am not allowed any better tech that I would develop from that. Given a properly funded science community, far more could be invented.

Originally posted by Mr. President
Between 95% reliable ABM systems, artificial-intelligence rulers, and hyper-battleships, it's a wonder you don't rule the world

I don't have hyper battleships, and with the largest arms manufacturing and the 2nd largest military budget, I'm surprised I don't rule the world too. Ubertech is not just about sticking to RL tech, it's about having soemthign realistic foir your nation. If there was a RL nation like Akiria, with it's population and spending, then they would have tech probably far far better than this. AI is possible on some levels now, with complex adaptive systems, and Akizeta is not a ruler in that sense. She is the head of state, and is AI, but I am not saying she is conscious like a human. She could pass the turing test, but she does not rule all. The ABM system reponse was given above. Ubertech would be if a small nation without much spending were to do this, not that the largest arms producing nation in the world does, with the largest IT sector and the 2nd largest military budget.

Originally posted by Archaic
Alecrast has never done any such thing.

But you invaded Sheepsta to create North and South Sheepsta. That was what I was refering to, although it is a dud issue, so I withdraw the comment.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And since terrorist acts are by definition illegal, trading with terrorists constitutes assisting an illegal act, does it not?

What is a terrorist? Who decides who is? What constitutes terrorism? Who says it's illegal? And who says that because someone helps someone who is a terrorist, that a) they know at the time that they are and b) that they willingly help them with their task? I have sorted this disagreement out with Archaic, but I wish to make the point thsat just because you think something is illegal, doesn't mean it is. It is down to which nation it is perpitrated in, and the laws of that nation. If someone does perpitrate terrorism against you, it would be illegal. If they do in a nation without laws against it, it isn't.

[GeneralTacticus]

What is a terrorist? Who decides who is? What constitutes terrorism? Who says it's illegal?

Generally either the nation in which the act occurs, or an international body with the authority to create a definition which is accepted by the nations concerned.

As for it being illegal... generally speaking, terrorism is considered to be illegal by definition, especially in view of the usually accepted definitions of it.

And who says that because someone helps someone who is a terrorist, that a) they know at the time that they are

They don't, but if they did, or if they should have known but, owing to either wilfull blindness or simple carelessness, they didn't, then they are responsible for the use to which their aid is put.

and b) that they willingly help them with their task?

If they are being forced into helping terrorists for some reaosn, then unless they could have reasonably resisted and got away with not helping, they are not responsible for what happens; all blame is put on those that compelled the help, not those that gave it.

I have sorted this disagreement out with Archaic, but I wish to make the point thsat just because you think something is illegal, doesn't mean it is. It is down to which nation it is perpitrated in, and the laws of that nation. If someone does perpitrate terrorism against you, it would be illegal. If they do in a nation without laws against it, it isn't.

Well, like I said, terrorism is generally considered illegal by definition (and, again, in view of it's usual definition, for it to be legal would require some very large holes in a nation's legal code), and I know of no country which would consider using a nuclear weapon against one of their cities legal (which was the context of this debate).

[Drogue]

Very true. It just depends on what the victim nations thinks counts as terrorism, as it is inherently illegal.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well I'm glad we can agree on that. However, like I said, I know of nowhere that would not consider a nuclear attack on their territory illegal.