Jump to content

Role of WRC Wonder


Triyun
 Share

Recommended Posts

With TE dead (huzzah!) the WRC really now only serves one function which is the production of hydrogen and neutron bombs. Yet the world is definitely looking for alternative solutions for what until the end of the Cold War was going to be high tech warfare dominated by a nuclear arsenal. Hydrogen and neutron bombs would not logically be a end all result for using the WRC.

I would like to propose having the WRC act for the development of the following things as well:

1) Biological weapons which involve significant amounts of genetic engineering, specifically splicing.
2) Creation of conventional WMD size explosives and kinetic weapons designed to replace nuclear weapons in some tactical roles (explosives larger than the FOAB) and rods from god.
3) Directed energy weapons
4) Facility and above size Clean EMPs (not created by a nuclear blast)
5) Rail guns

It should be noted that for all of these type weapons, either they presumably do not exist (bio weapons being banned by treaty) or are only in test and prototype stages of countries with the equivalent of a WRC (for example the US DARPA).

Stuff such as an advanced biological weapon would in fact be a much more technologically intensive undertaking than making a hydrogen bomb.

It should also be noted that presumably for most of these projects, the nations with the tech levels to develop them likely would have WRCs already. This would not substitute for a tech requirement, but would be the facilitator to building such systems.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No rods from god, no directed energy weapons, no rail guns. Frankly, I don't think any of these three should be in RP at all, because, while they might be in testing stages, they are not RP'd properly. People tend to think they are a be-all, end-all superweapon and they aren't.

The other two and a half (taking out the rods from god section in number 2) I'm fine with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1306531709' post='2719146']
2) Creation of conventional WMD size explosives and kinetic weapons designed to replace nuclear weapons in some tactical roles (explosives larger than the FOAB) and rods from god.[/quote]
How strong a blast are you thinking about? It's near impossible to go anywhere above a Davy Crockett, and yet it seems like there's quite a few Hiroshima class weapons laying around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1306555468' post='2719338']
No rods from god, no directed energy weapons, no rail guns. Frankly, I don't think any of these three should be in RP at all, because, while they might be in testing stages, they are not RP'd properly. People tend to think they are a be-all, end-all superweapon and they aren't.

The other two and a half (taking out the rods from god section in number 2) I'm fine with.
[/quote]

Unlike clean EMPs, directed energy weapons and rail guns are actually in operational test stages. Further a few directed energy weapons are in active service. I think it doesn't make much sense to deny this.

In regards to rods from god, they are basically a kinetic warhead on a missile. The technical challenge is more building the missile to deliver them. We can't permanently station offensive weapons in space.

[quote]How strong a blast are you thinking about? It's near impossible to go anywhere above a Davy Crockett, and yet it seems like there's quite a few Hiroshima class weapons laying around.[/quote]

MOAB is reported to be capable of taking out nine city blocks with an air burst, several times that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1306563409' post='2719410']
MOAB is reported to be capable of taking out nine city blocks with an air burst, several times that.
[/quote]
You're basically advocating that we pack more than 100 tons of TNT into a single weapon? Trying to figure out what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1306555468' post='2719338']
No rods from god, no directed energy weapons, no rail guns. Frankly, I don't think any of these three should be in RP at all, because, while they might be in testing stages, they are not RP'd properly. People tend to think they are a be-all, end-all superweapon and they aren't.

The other two and a half (taking out the rods from god section in number 2) I'm fine with.
[/quote]
Rods from god require a massive infrastructure in space, which not every nation would have.
I'd think they could also be a potential 'substitute' for nukes or, if they're smaller, count for cruise missiles. FOABs count as CM-numbers too, after all, and the Rod impact won't likely have the same repercussions as a nuclear warhead - though depending on what kind you use. Depleted uranium rods might $%&@ some !@#$ up.

Directed energy weapons are entirely possible. As Triyun said, they're in testing stages, some kinds are in active service (THEL, as example). If you read the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2659105"]several[/url] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2667657"]walls[/url] of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2671663"]text[/url] I've done, you'll find several references to real weapons and the research I've done for this.
DEWs are possible. I could build a rudimentary one out of psare parts I have lying around. The question is powering them, which will soon enough be solved, too (supercapacitors). But I made all those arguments before, and none were heard. :v:

Railguns are in active testing. A major problem is cooling. But really, ETC weaponry is currently superior to any railgun we can cook up.


I'm pretty much for Triyun's proposal, so yeah.


Edit: I don't know why, but people seem to think of railguns and DEWs as unstoppable superweapons that kill everything with no effort.
This is stupid. And not the case.

Edited by Lynneth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1306563866' post='2719413']
You're basically advocating that we pack more than 100 tons of TNT into a single weapon? Trying to figure out what you mean.
[/quote]

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562936/Russian-army-tests-the-father-of-all-bombs.html]"According to Gen Alexander Rushkin, the Russian deputy chief of staff, the new bomb is smaller than the MOAB but much deadlier because, due to nanotechnology, the temperature at the epicentre of the blast is twice as high."[/url]

Presumably nations with tech upwards beyond 2007 would be able to continue this type of research to an extent. Especially those with weapons research complexes. While I'm not saying you could pack one into a hand grenade, I am saying its entirely conceivable with a proper rocket lifter to make an ICBM several times capable of delivering a larger thermobaric bomb. The real issue IRL is economics. But economics isn't really applicable in CN RP. We can go through the list now of various things from battleships costing less than frigates to smaller nations having B-2 bombers when the US only had 24 all of which we've made the choice of.

[quote]I won't recognize any sort of rail gun or rod from god, no matter how well it's RPed.

Thus, unless those are taken out from the proposal, I won't be supporting this.[/quote]

TBH, this really isn't an option. Rail guns have been around for a long time and ruled on by GMs. Lyn's right near term a ETC is a much more viable option. The range for rail guns entering service is presumed to be early 2020s on a few ships (it'll likely depend how many DDG-1000s they make, which is intended to serve as a technology bridge ship).

The rods from god I am talking about are not ones which are supported by massive permanent orbiting stations, but rather can be launched from a rocket. This is essentially an over sized solid ICBM warhead which uses mass and the kinetic energy of re-entry to do the damage. IRL a conventional ICBM is entirely viable, the main impediment of it is that it moves EXACTLY like a nuclear ICBM, and if you use one to blow up a cave in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, or Russia may think you're shooting a nuclear bomb at them and decide to shoot back. A rod would be bigger, and thusly requires a better rocket, hence WRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside all technical questions, I agree with Triyun's proposal in principal. However, I think that we need to change our current CM multiplier system from the current pure number to a yield one: Bascially, each IG CM would equal to around 100 TNT equivalent or the like (for explosives/kinetic weapons). That way, we can avoid someone making one hell of a monster, like say a 500 ton bomb with a 10 kiloton yield or a kinetic weapon with a 5 kilometer diameter damage range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1306591072' post='2719489']
The rods from god I am talking about are not ones which are supported by massive permanent orbiting stations, [b]but rather can be launched from a rocket[/b]. This is essentially an over sized solid ICBM warhead which uses mass and the kinetic energy of re-entry to do the damage. IRL a conventional ICBM is entirely viable, the main impediment of it is that it moves EXACTLY like a nuclear ICBM, and if you use one to blow up a cave in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, or Russia may think you're shooting a nuclear bomb at them and decide to shoot back. A rod would be bigger, and thusly requires a better rocket, hence WRC.
[/quote]
Depending on the weight of the rod, it's going to be one of the world's most expensive launch systems ever. It cost about $10,000 to launch one pound into space. If you wanted to launch a 200 ton missile to inflict a WMD scale damage on the target, it's going to cost about $4 billion. A LGM-118 Peacekeeper cost about $70 million per unit.

I'm not even sure if a 200 ton tungsten rod is capable of matching a nuke's destruction.

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1306618157' post='2719674']
Depending on the weight of the rod, it's going to be one of the world's most expensive launch systems ever. [b]It cost about $10,000 to launch one pound into space.[/b] If you wanted to launch a 200 ton missile to inflict a WMD scale damage on the target, it's going to cost about $4 billion. A LGM-118 Peacekeeper cost about $70 million per unit.

I'm not even sure if a 200 ton tungsten rod is capable of matching a nuke's destruction.
[/quote]

How did you get that figure? Also, its similar concept to a meteorite, how their entry speed and impact make the damage, not a nuclear explosion. (At least thats what i get out of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1306631139' post='2719761']
How did you get that figure? Also, its similar concept to a meteorite, how their entry speed and impact make the damage, not a nuclear explosion. (At least thats what i get out of it)
[/quote]
http://www.universetoday.com/25431/why-cant-we-launch-garbage-into-space/

[quote]"[b]It’s been estimated that launching material on the space shuttle costs about $10,000/pound ($22,000/kg).[/b] Even if engineers could bring down prices by a factor of 10, it would still be thousands of dollars to launch the garbage into space. Let’s imagine a wonderful dream world, where launch costs could be brought down to $1,000/kg – a factor of 1/20th the cost to launch on the space shuttle."[/quote]

Regarding the damage, after thinking about KE weapons, they would be better suited for pulverizing underground reinforced targets. Unless if you somehow hauled an asteroid big enough or gathered enough space junk (and glued/taped them together) to not completely vaporize Earth's atmosphere during entry and hurled it over your target...


Nukes: Great for vulnerable surface targets.

KE weapons: "Those are some nice several dozen trillion dollars worth of underground cities and military command structures. Would be a shame if something bad happened to them..."

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1306555468' post='2719338']
No rods from god, no directed energy weapons, no rail guns. Frankly, I don't think any of these three should be in RP at all, because, while they might be in testing stages, they are not RP'd properly. People tend to think they are a be-all, end-all superweapon and they aren't.

The other two and a half (taking out the rods from god section in number 2) I'm fine with.
[/quote]

I have to agree with Pravus here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against rods from god, directed energy weapons and the like not because of possibility but because of abuse potential.

We DID have a problem with rods in the past, and with ragenukes still existing, the inability to not recognise a conflict, and people who have no idea how warfare is supposed to be fought in the first place, it can be said with 100% certainty that someone will abuse at least one of the things mentioned.

That having been said, I'm in agreement with just about everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all those arguing against the proposal due to "potenial abuse": Why not just limit that total yield of weapons, like say change our current CM multiplier system from the current pure number to one where each IG CM would equal to around 100 TNT equivalent or the like (for explosives/kinetic weapons)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...