01-19-2006, 07:52 PM
If you go with a complete ban, I'd just Frisbeeteria's arguments about "IGNORE CANNONS" with respect to the reason the moderators won't allow us to create UN Security personnel for UN buildings as a defense against the "It will make the UN weak."
Here is the logic:
- The moderators have prohibited the UN from having a standing army (metagame reasons)
- The moderators have also prohibited the UN from having *any* internal security guards (a slippery slope argument)
- The moderators have suggested that magic "IGNORE" cannons will always protect UN assets, thus there is no need for security guards
- If a magic "IGNORE" cannon can protect a UN resource (say a building), a series of them should magically protect nations from non-UN member chemical weapons ... therefore, using the game moderator logic, we don't need chemical weapons for defense
The moderators will hate this, but they really are the ones that started this.
In any event, you'll need to address the "But this will give non-UN members a tactical advantage" arguments that will pop up. Another way might be to suggest that money spent on chemical weapons would be still used to refine convention arms (bunker busters, aircraft, infantry). However, my question is can nations spend money to *defend* against chemical weapons? I'd actually argue that small stockpiles dedicated for testing purposes might be OK.
Here is the logic:
- The moderators have prohibited the UN from having a standing army (metagame reasons)
- The moderators have also prohibited the UN from having *any* internal security guards (a slippery slope argument)
- The moderators have suggested that magic "IGNORE" cannons will always protect UN assets, thus there is no need for security guards
- If a magic "IGNORE" cannon can protect a UN resource (say a building), a series of them should magically protect nations from non-UN member chemical weapons ... therefore, using the game moderator logic, we don't need chemical weapons for defense
The moderators will hate this, but they really are the ones that started this.
In any event, you'll need to address the "But this will give non-UN members a tactical advantage" arguments that will pop up. Another way might be to suggest that money spent on chemical weapons would be still used to refine convention arms (bunker busters, aircraft, infantry). However, my question is can nations spend money to *defend* against chemical weapons? I'd actually argue that small stockpiles dedicated for testing purposes might be OK.