Terrorists Strike City Centre

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

This is your regular installment of hypothetical situations to ponder about, taken from the [Poll #1785315]
The possible options, of course, are purposefully stratified.

Comments

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

I think there should be at least an option to rectify security flaws without altering laws, and to pick more options than one.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately that's not in the conditions of the NS game. And I suspect, for a reason.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

And what might be the reason? (I'm not at all familiar with NS)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

From the Wiki profile of the game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government:_NationStates#Issues): All issues have a peculiar characteristic, and no option is the "correct" one. Each usually has a positive and a negative aspect, although the latter is usually highlighted, and both are always exaggerated. Many issues are posed in terms of radical or extremist beliefs, and the accompanying opinions are rarely well-founded. This is for both humorous and didactic reasons: many opinions are extremely funny or ridiculous, and the player learns that there are no perfect ideas which will work in every case. As gameplay progresses, the user learns that each of the options provided for the proposed issues become more ridiculous and offer no stability to the nationstate. Although this is a simulation game of creating your own nation, the responses are often unrealistic and do not provide any middle-ground options to resolve the issues. Instead, the issues are used to drastically change your nation's economic, political, or social beliefs. (See FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq#politics))

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

Ah, thanks. So the reason is what I suspected it to be: for teh lulz.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

For a more pronounced stratification. Of course, one could ignore an issue and not take a decision, which doesn't reflect on their country's performance. But I didn't provide for such an option here. Now that is for teh lulz! ;-)

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

Mister, that's what I was talking about too ;)

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

Or thinking about, at least.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

1. "They simply crossed the line!" shouts General Naki O'Bannon. "Far too long have we tolerated these terrorist threats, it's time that they realise they can't mess with us. Send the order to prepare an invasion, and we will show them who is boss! Our brave soldiers are prepared to die for their country, all we need is your signature and a lot of money. But what is the cost of freedom and safety for [Insert Country Name]'s peoples?"


Invading a foreign country over a group of militants here? That solves nothing and only takes resources away while generating more problems...

2. "Attacking another country isn't the answer," says Steffan Shiomi, director of the [Insert Country Name] Intelligence Agency. "The problem doesn't lie abroad, but within [Insert Country Name] itself! We should have more freedom to do our work. Protecting our nation from these cowardly scaremongerers would be much easier if we had an inherent right to tap phones and other communications, get search warrants whenever we need, and detain suspects indefinitely. Remember, to prevent is better than to cure."

Not ideal -- but if militants are already in our country, then steps to find them need to be taken.

3. "No, that's what those terrorists want us to do!" speculates chairman Melbourne Barry of the Patriots' Coffee and Biscuits Club. "We don't want to give the Agency any more responsibility, they're the ones who messed up in the first place. What we need is to purge [Insert Country Name] of these rats who don't respect the laws and traditions of our way of life. We know who they are and where they come from, so the solution is obvious: we just won't let those sorts of people cross our borders and kick out those who are already here. It might seem a bit harsh, but hey, we were here first. Long live [Insert Country Name]!"


Again - this is pissing into your own soup before you serve dinner. This has nothing to do with justice (or law) and only inflames anger/hatred that will generate more home-grown incidents.

4. "I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain in their head that this will just not work," says Akira Hanover, a noted professor of social studies. "The people who perpetrate these terrible crimes do so because they feel they have no other recourse to demonstrate their political opinions. They'll do anything and I'm sure they're not above hiring mercenaries. You must understand why terrorists act as they do and fix it! What we should do is to reach out to the ethnic and religious minorities and seek common ground! Negotiation is the key! Violence solves nothing."


Reach out to militants who already dont trust your government? And believe they'll come forward *after* an attack?!? Naive optimism in my opinion.

5. "We spit on [Insert Country Name]!" expectorates Roxanne Thiesen, leader of the Lilliputian Freedom Fighters. "You disrespect our people and our country and everything we are! You spread your sickening influence where it is not wanted! You must change your ways and cease to oppose us or else there will be more bloodshed. You have been warned!"


This would validate the LFF's methods and encourage more attacks if this was followed. You cant please everyone, but a leader of a country must be careful not to capitulate to terrorist demands, especially unchallenged.


6. "Is terrorism such a terrible thing? Really?" asks Buffy Rubin, avant garde journalist, discreetly sliding a pipe bomb under your desk. "These people are simply expressing their political opinion the best way they know how. I think we should legalise terrorism as a legitimate form of political commentary. It'll certainly get people interested, don't you think?"


Cute...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Usually none of the options on an issue is the best solution on a NS poll, and that's intentional. Thanks for the point by point analysis.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Pretty much,

But in this particular situation I am inclined to pick 2 or 3 as beeing the "least stupid" option.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

#4 It's how the FLQ crisis was ended. It's why the Ireland is now a safe place to visit. Hardly naive optimism, but tried, tested and true.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Consider the lesson here:

If a minority group wants to shape policy although being in the minority, set off a few bombs and there you go!

Ireland went through a bunch of fighting and deaths before both sides were tired of the killing and agreed.

So while you can end hostilities with reaching out, you also have to consider the ramifications of catering to each to each group...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

set off a few bombs and there you go!

Or better yet, hijack Congress!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Yay Chaos!

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

So while you can end hostilities with reaching out, you also have to consider the ramifications of catering to each to each group...

Yes, yes you do have to consider the ramifications of negotiating peace out of a violent situation. And one has to consider the ramifications of not making peace. Israel has found it's solution quite volatile. Sdan finally voted to split the country in two. Other countries... well each conflict has uniqueness... not all conflicts are entirely violent... etc, etc.

Yes, please consider the ramifications. Of course consider the ramifications. Don't think for one second you can predict them very well either.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I disagree with your assessment of #3. Expelling terrorists and barring them from entry isn't peeing in your own soup; it's more like skimming off the pee from your soup and keeping the soup urinaters away from your bowl. Also, focusing the attention of law enforcement on the people who are the problem won't arouse the ire of people who aren't the problem.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The problem is:
Who are the terrorists?

As seen in Arizona during the immigration discussions, you can very easily end up labelling *anyone* from Country X as a "terorrist", or one of "them", or whatever...

You end up holding an entire group responsible for the actions of a few if you're not careful.


Which is why #3 to me doesnt work in reality, as much as we would like it to...

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I picked 3) but I'd amend it a bit. Specifically the xenophobic part about purging people and tightly sealing off the borders. Instead, I'd go on television and publically laugh at the terrorists:

"You killed a paltry 300(or however many) people? Bitch, you ain't got shit on starvation. Starvation kills 2 million people annually worldwide. If you want to terrorizes us...well, you need to step up your game plan because we the people of InsertNationland are not impressed."

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

nah; tell the terrorists how many citizens of your country just flat-out commit suicide each year. and then how many smoke and drink themselves to death.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Ah! Even batter!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ridicule as a weapon, brilliant! ^

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

*takes a bow*

Seriously, I would've done this after the 9-11 attacks: "3k dead? That's the best you've got? Hell, the Soviets and ourselves were at one time poised to annihilate the entire human race for fuck's sake. lol what a paper tiger, this Jihadism."

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Let's try some institutionalized terrorism. I say legalize! When something becomes legal it loses its appeal.

Of course the bad guys will always come up with some other way to stir shit up, so...

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I'll PM my bank account to you.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't institutionalizing it result in government monopolies and over regulation of the industry? Better to deregulate so that market forces can converge on the most efficient solution.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Anything for teh lulz.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I intensely dislike you for making me choose from these options. I don't like myself much when I consider each one.

My heart wants to go with 4, but my head sees 5, which leads me to 2, but then 3 makes sense at that point than taking away rights, so decided to hide in my bunker and watch porn instead.

But first, I locked 1 and 6 in a cell together, for shits n giggles.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I agree, porn is the best solution at this point. Make blowj.... LOVE, not war!

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Yay! I feel refreshed and vindicated!

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

I voted 4. in accordance with my convictions but 6. was very tempting.