StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CmdrWilkens wrote:Shep its the PACIFIC Union not the Cascadian Union.

Why would I want to sully the beaches of beautiful Alaska?

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Project much?

This, coming from the guy who inflated the Costas' ORBAT up to ridiculous levels and then proceeded to dictate the actions of other player armies that were not under his control so he could do more damage? That's rich.

Because an aircraft carrier and 112 very high performance soviet interceptors ideal pieces of an nation's military? *kill-filed*

EDIT: forgot to mention: I even put this past the Master Baerne when he put his Costa OOB up, and he approved of it. So fuck off and die.

MKSheppard wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:Shep its the PACIFIC Union not the Cascadian Union.

Why would I want to sully the beaches of beautiful Alaska?

Because the nation is the Pacific Union even if the place where the oil is spilling happens to be what used to be Cascadia.

My Characters Insomnia for the save!

Also - I mentioned the drones at the start of the game.

Stas Bush wrote:You don't really need to be "afraid" of CATO, you should just remember that picking fights with us will bring endgame.

Good thing Ryan isn't CATO, huh?

Ryan wrote:Well, I do think you're a moron and a terrible roleplayer. Your take on the strategic situation would go right in line with that assessment.

Somebody call me a WAH-bulance.

Lonestar wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:You don't really need to be "afraid" of CATO, you should just remember that picking fights with us will bring endgame.

Good thing Ryan isn't CATO, huh?

Where the hell do you think I got my nukes from in such a short period of time?

Ryan Thunder wrote: Where the hell do you think I got my nukes from in such a short period of time?

Then you might want to update your organizational page on Wiki.

Lonestar wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote: Where the hell do you think I got my nukes from in such a short period of time?

Then you might want to update your organizational page on Wiki.

The missile carriers have been there for fuckin ages, man.

the goddamned wiki wrote:648 × M-3 Grizzly main battle tanks
1 × M-x3A Gatling Grizzly close-air defenders
180 × M-2A Spitting Cobra self-propelled multiple rocket launchers
240 × M-5 Interceptor self-propelled air defenders (540 planned)
1 × air defense regiment (2 planned)
2 × independent air defense battalions
75 × M-19 Harbinger theatre ballistic missile carriers (90 planned)
2 × missile battalions
3 × independent missile batteries
[...]

Ryan Thunder wrote: The missile carriers have been there for fuckin ages, man.

Alright, let me clarify:

YOU ARE NOT LISTED AS A CATO MEMBER.

I doff my pickelhaube to the second third leader to pass away! And then immediately replace it with my kevlar field helmet because there are nefarious Polarians watching.

Always watching.

Watching.

Forever.




...




D:

I thought the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships stipulates that oil tankers must be double hulled, or at least the new ones from a certain date. In general, the newer oil tankers are double hulled.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I thought the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships stipulates that oil tankers must be double hulled, or at least the new ones from a certain date. In general, the newer oil tankers are double hulled.

Did we have anything like that though?

Lonestar wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I thought the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships stipulates that oil tankers must be double hulled, or at least the new ones from a certain date. In general, the newer oil tankers are double hulled.

Did we have anything like that though?

Well, no. Though I am not too sure how many international conventions we chose to adopt or not adopt. In all technicality, there's no law of the sea, or anything like that.

Didn't we all pretty much agree that every widely adopted treaty before 1940 existed in this world as well, or somesuch? Granted that won't include double-hulled oil tankers...

Siege wrote:Didn't we all pretty much agree that every widely adopted treaty before 1940 existed in this world as well, or somesuch? Granted that won't include double-hulled oil tankers...

No, it wouldn't. I think there's an agreement that something like the Hague Convention exists, but no "Outer Space Treaties" or anti-proliferation treaties.

That's because we didn't have nukes or space programs, while it's reasonable to assume oil tankers existed in the game before.

PeZook wrote:That's because we didn't have nukes or space programs, while it's reasonable to assume oil tankers existed in the game before.

Yeah, but so far as I know we don't even a law of the sea signed.

That's probably we argued about the convention in the past, right?

I think we've been over the matter a few times already...

PeZook wrote:That's probably we argued about the convention in the past, right?

I think we've been over the matter a few times already...

Fine,I don't think we have any international environmental agreements either.

*throws arms up in disgust*

I shall demand you present your country's entire civil, criminal, trade and occupational law code, otherwise I will consider it nonexistant

PeZook wrote:*throws arms up in disgust*

I shall demand you present your country's entire civil, criminal, trade and occupational law code, otherwise I will consider it nonexistant

The difference being one is internal to the country and one is international.

Yeah, I think we agreed that pre-1940 stuff was brought in. Anything after that was on us.

Siege wrote:Didn't we all pretty much agree that every widely adopted treaty before 1940 existed in this world as well, or somesuch? Granted that won't include double-hulled oil tankers...

Okay what I requested, and was generally agreed upon at the time, was the all pre-1945 international treaties were in force in our world. This would include the Geneva conventions, the Hauge Conventions, Declaration of Paris and some of the early work on copyrights, extradition, and the like.

Since that time we've definately haggled over the Law of the Sea and Outer Space. My rough guess would be that if we extended the treaty date up to about 1970 we'd be okay (the current UNCOLOS replaced an existing conglomeration of several 1958 treaties which contain the real meat of international maritime law though they didn't go in to fore until the early 60s).

Certainly the objections to Lonestar's closing of the Impact Crater Archipelago to international traffic is based on a post 1945 treaty interpretation so the game has sort of shifted towards recognizing work up to that point. The thing is the later w define things the more likely it is that we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot by having folks be in violation of either the space weapons ban, the limited (and also comprehensive) test ban, and several other conventions of the last several decades.

I think going forward the best way to act is that:

A) everything pre 1945 is in force
B) everything post-1945 represents governing law SOMEWHERE
- In other words just as American and British admiralty courts cited each other before the law of the sea began to have force of treaty we should regard more modern treaties as having force of law somewhere BUT not being immutable international law.
- In turn this means that actions in violations of more modern treaties would not necessarily hold up they are open to much more leeway in particular if there is an IC justifiable reason for a given nation not to recognize the law (see Japanistan and weapons in space).
C) Any dispute which would takes place in an international arena should be submitted either to Steve as mod or to an unaligned party to either side of the dispute (thus a Japanistan-Wilkonia dispute could be sent to Steve, Phong, PeZook or any CATO member but no MESS member)

Anyway that is my recommendation.

I'm curious, actually, as to why a Japanistani tanker was off my coast when North America has a ready supplier of oil in Alaska? A cheaper supply than provided by trans-Pacific shipping from a country we're not too friendly with?

CmdrWilkens wrote:Shep its the PACIFIC Union not the Cascadian Union.

Also this came out of nowhere so if it goes un-modded I'm gonna write up a WIN/WCGS incident response for tomorrow morning.

I suspect Shep chose me as the unfortunate one because I am the mod and I can't so easily hammer the post without accusations of powergaming for my personal benefit.