Morally difficult weapons, equipment and actions

[ChalkLine]

Everyone plays to their own playstyle and it's not my place to lecture people on how to do that. However, some of the things from the initial printing of The Morrow Project raises questions today. A classic case for this is flame weapons.

Most nations ban flame weapons. There is a good reason for this, using 'horror weapons' has the effect of hardening enemy resolve to fight on after the immediate effect of the weapon is over.

The Morrow Project placed flame weapons in store when the US military still used them. After the US military retired these weapons does The Morrow Project remove them?

The big problem is, of course, that the targets of these weapons are potential US citizens by default. Now warfare involves killing people and trying to deny that is stupid, but the more I think about it the more The Project's activities seem to be more a 'police action' that 'invading and seizing territory'.

Thoughts?

[mmartin798]

The other potential use for flame weapons is to help clear a biologically contaminated area. Burning the bodies of the dead and contaminated wood structures that would be difficult or impossible to make safe by chemical decontamination would be a use since the flame weapons would be very effective sources of ignition.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by mmartin798

The other potential use for flame weapons is to help clear a biologically contaminated area. Burning the bodies of the dead and contaminated wood structures that would be difficult or impossible to make safe by chemical decontamination would be a use since the flame weapons would be very effective sources of ignition.

That might justify having them appear in Project stocks, in limited quantities, in designated roles (although there are better ways to do a controlled burn). It doesn't justify having them as a Team member's primary weapon.

I never allowed them to be issued.

[RandyT0001]

Historically, flame weapons are used to clear bunkers, pillboxes, etc. If tear gas does not clear out the defenders then flame becomes the default. Was a backpack flame thrower a standard weapon kit in any edition of MP?

[nuke11]

Originally Posted by RandyT0001

Historically, flame weapons are used to clear bunkers, pillboxes, etc. If tear gas does not clear out the defenders then flame becomes the default. Was a backpack flame thrower a standard weapon kit in any edition of MP?

Yes from 1st thru 4th editions. Never did figure a reason why it was in the game in the first place. Not sure how you are going to be able to store fuel in a usable form for 150 yrs.

[cosmicfish]

And the Project should not be expecting to clear out many pillboxes or bunkers anyway. Really, flamethrowers are a better weapon against the Project than for it.

[mmartin798]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

That might justify having them appear in Project stocks, in limited quantities, in designated roles (although there are better ways to do a controlled burn). It doesn't justify having them as a Team member's primary weapon.

I never allowed them to be issued.

I have never had them at the team level either. It just does not have a good use for any team, other than the limited example I had.

[ChalkLine]

If there's a culture of 'Villain Preppers' there might well be bunkers, or at least an expectation of them.

In my mind the flame weapons are taken out in the last update of the stocks, although some might be overlooked/left because the stocks are too difficult to access

[tsofian]

There are also bolt rockets that fire nerve agent, a megaton yield nuclear weapon. I think the flame thrower might be less of an issue than these.

Flame throwers might be great against blue undead. However, the blue undead make no sense at all

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

There are also bolt rockets that fire nerve agent, a megaton yield nuclear weapon. I think the flame thrower might be less of an issue than these.

Flame throwers might be great against blue undead. However, the blue undead make no sense at all

Don't remember the Project issuing nerve agents anywhere - is that a 4ed thing?

The Project having nukes is, to me, actually LESS of an issue, provided they are kept to the top echelon. The idea that the Project leadership might see a need to nuke an opposing army is less problematic to me than Project members whose primary weapon is a war crime.

[mmartin798]

Nope, the nerve agent is a 3rd edition thing. It's on pg 18 of mine, just before the AIM-9D. It is 115mm and fired from a TOW launcher. Fortunately, the team is safe, since they already carry the counter agent.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by mmartin798

Nope, the nerve agent is a 3rd edition thing. It's on pg 18 of mine, just before the AIM-9D. It is 115mm and fired from a TOW launcher. Fortunately, the team is safe, since they already carry the counter agent.

Huh, not sure if I always missed that (never spent much time looking at the missiles since they always seemed irrelevant) or just forgot about it. That it exists in the inventory is highly problematic, I am curious about how they were distributed.

Also... did the original authors not really believe in the idea of war crimes? The whole game is predicated on the horrors of total NBC warfare, and yet it seems the Project is just a bit of weaponized anthrax away from restarting the whole thing!

[Project_Sardonicus]

I think first of all the flamethrower like so much military technology wasn't ditched because it was illegal or immoral. But rather giving one soldier a 30 kilo backpack that let him squirt five for about 30 seconds, wasn't practical. Not when you could achieve a similar result with a WP grenade, HAFLA 35 or similar weapons.

The flamethrower would provide some fairly unique problems for the project. First of all it's incredibly bulky, where would you even store it in a crowded V-150? In any kind of firefight your team of 6 shooters, has got one member with a weapon with limited ammo, pistol range and a need to be protected. Finally how would you train team members on it? You're here to restore civilisation, help people, come in peace, now here's a weapon that allows you to kill people in the most hideous manner known to man.

I suspect flame throwers were a highly limited issue weapon, used only for specialized roles by trained MARS personnel. Perhaps they had use for clearing heavy brush or snow banks? Maybe for taking on bunkers used by deranged survivalists?

Of course it could just be that BEM saw the future with Night Children, Blue Undead and killer plants and felt it was a more useful took m16. If your campaign doesn't have such scifi nasties maybe just delete it?

[Project_Sardonicus]

Of course the actual question of moral weapons in the world of the MP is an interesting one.

The project is surprisingly fragile with relatively few military style resources and it's most precious and fragile resources being it's personnel. Say you've got an Ag team working to reclaim hundreds of acres of farm land and a med team starting up a field hospital. What do you do when say 200 desperate brigands turn up or maybe a unit of rogue ex military with tanks? And you've only got a mixture of 30 MARS and Recon, would you just turn around pack up and leave?

How would the project get any actual work done and wouldn't it's military units be worn down and destroyed fairly quickly?

What level of firepower would be appropriate? Perhaps a drone or cargo plane armed with cluster bombs? Or would a simple long range rocket with a sarin warhead? How about a very small and precise nuke?

I think it's this sort of question that determines whether the project was well meaning, but doomed. Or maybe if it was prepared for the very darkest decisions at the end of the world.

[ChalkLine]

The answer to this I think is The Project is never assumed to work alone. Immediately after the Recon elements find 'civilised' or 'civilisable' groups they start to recruit them. It must be remembered that the primary job of 95% of encountered individuals will be that of 'finding/making food'. The swarms of raiders will be rare and only in highly fertile areas. Those using tanks are probably primary targets for subversion rather than aggression as they will have a good infrastructure in place to support their assets

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus

Say you've got an Ag team working to reclaim hundreds of acres of farm land and a med team starting up a field hospital. What do you do when say 200 desperate brigands turn up or maybe a unit of rogue ex military with tanks? And you've only got a mixture of 30 MARS and Recon, would you just turn around pack up and leave?

First, you've obviously experienced a pretty big recon/intelligence failure in this scenario! But in that case you retreat, preserving as much as possible, and call for reinforcements.

Second, under a fully operational Project that scenario shouldn't happen. Recon should be identifying groups like that before the Ag teams are awake, and they should be addressed by larger sets of Teams possibly assisted by locally raised militia.

Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus

What level of firepower would be appropriate? Perhaps a drone or cargo plane armed with cluster bombs? Or would a simple long range rocket with a sarin warhead? How about a very small and precise nuke?

MARS Teams should be able to handle this - the Project is not designed for standup war on this scale, but they should have advantages of mobility, range, and sensors that should allow them to take out the tanks and other vehicles before they are a significant threat. If the enemy is powerful enough, escalate to higher authorities who have access to aircraft, Phoenix Team, and if necessary fusion charges.

I would not under any circumstance give the Project access to lethal chemical weapons. Too uncontrollable. If the world is still that hostile, the Project needs to go back to sleep until the fighting has died down some more.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Huh, not sure if I always missed that (never spent much time looking at the missiles since they always seemed irrelevant) or just forgot about it. That it exists in the inventory is highly problematic, I am curious about how they were distributed.

Also... did the original authors not really believe in the idea of war crimes? The whole game is predicated on the horrors of total NBC warfare, and yet it seems the Project is just a bit of weaponized anthrax away from restarting the whole thing!

"War Crimes" is dependent on a working criminal justice system. But I never issued them in my campaigns. You'd need a fusion powered plant and a stock pile of crude. Vehicle fuel for reconstruction would be my priority anyway. They are in Engineer caches as special gear.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

"War Crimes" is dependent on a working criminal justice system.

I would argue that crimes need only recognition, the systems for dealing with them, whether formal or informal, are secondary. So long as we agree that theft is wrong, for example, then it remains wrong whether we deal with it by jury trial, lynch mob, or personal retribution (which may also be wrong, but that's another story). After the war, after the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have destroyed the world, I do not think the population would need a formal tribunal to look at the Project firing sarin gas rockets and decide that they were, at best, bad guys who might be on the same side, and at worst, just bad guys.

[ChalkLine]

The Morrow project's stated purpose is to reinstitute the US constitution, which I think means trial by jury, habeas corpus and so on

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

The Morrow project's stated purpose is to reinstitute the US constitution, which I think means trial by jury, habeas corpus and so on

Sure, but that doesn't mean everything is lawless until that happens. And even if there is no one to prosecute the Project, they can still be held accountable to the populace, even if they just ally with someone else.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Sure, but that doesn't mean everything is lawless until that happens. And even if there is no one to prosecute the Project, they can still be held accountable to the populace, even if they just ally with someone else.

Oh yeah, I mean that exactly. The idea is they have to uphold themselves to a base standard of behaviour that is quite high. They are literally bringing law (and not 'personal law') to a lawless land