Morally difficult weapons, equipment and actions

[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.

[.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.