Jump to content

Nukes


Lynneth

  

53 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1309833742' post='2749003']
I believe the largest miniaturized warhead is held by the US at 20 MT on the peace-keeper missiles. And it's only a theoretical design, has never been deployed. Largest deployed I think was 9 MT.

Correction, it was a Titan 2 missile and the yield limit was actually higher than I thought..

In 1963 DOE declassified statements that the U.S. had the technological capability of deploying a 35 MT warhead on the Titan II, or a 50-60 MT gravity bomb on B-52s. Neither weapon was pursued, but either would require yield-to-weight ratios superior to a 25 MT Mk-41. This may have been achievable by utilizing the same design as the B-41 but with the addition of a HEU tamper, in place of the cheaper, but lower energy density U-238 tamper which is the most commonly used tamper material in Teller-Ulam thermonuclear weapon.
[/quote]
You bring up a good point, but you're limiting yourself to NATO forces only - here's something to think about, the Titan II had (suborbital) payload capacity of about 3700kg and a 35MT warhead could be put on that. Peacekeepers have about 4000kg The soviets had an ICBM, the R-36 which had around 8800kg of throw weight to play with (which it used for delivering 10, 750kt warheads and about 40 heavy decoys and the only reason it was limited to this few was the START treaty). Infact there was a successor planned that could launch about 9.5 tonnes and was planning on carrying 30+ warheads

The reason why we don't historically have warheads over [i]many[/i] 20mt mounted on missiles (One of the R-36 loudouts included an actual 25Mt warhead) is not because of impossibility or even difficulty - it's because the USA had a doctrine favouring smaller warheads and the Russians were banned by treaties. However they two were moving away from single massive warheads, preferring to deploy many, many, smaller warheads to cover a larger area.

Now I'm not saying anyone would mount a Tsar Bomba on their rockets (that !@#$% weighed about 27 tonnes!).

And to be perfectly honest, I am quite happy to have the bombs limited to 20MT. In fact I would gladly see them reduced even further (frankly I'd like to see the return of MIRVs and possibly FOBs... perhaps a WRC thing? before I saw them enlarged).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think we should use MIRVs, say 10 per nuke per player, 300 kt each for a 3 megaton total missile with a distributed effect. Be able to hit a total of 250 targets if you fire all of your nukes. That'd be the most realistic possible outcome. SDI hitting one nuke would cause 10 targets not to be hit. Maybe instead of having WRC amp up the power of an individual warhead, have it enable MIRV capability instead.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1309885355' post='2749459']
I agree, but I think it should be an IC not an OOC decision. We should be RPing arms control treaties, not handling this in this manner. In doing so we are missing an opportunity to make the RP far more realistic.
[/quote]
Arms control will never work because some people are too happy to fire off a nuclear bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1309885355' post='2749459']
I agree, but I think it should be an IC not an OOC decision. We should be RPing arms control treaties, not handling this in this manner. In doing so we are missing an opportunity to make the RP far more realistic.
[/quote]
People did that. Not a single person joined the treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1309906027' post='2749729']
People did that. Not a single person joined the treaty.
[/quote]

Makes sense, why get rid of a weapon that does no harm to you or the planet, but gives you a huge advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps the problem is the law of lack of consequences and not the nuclear weapons. I think we need some form of system that recognizes that if a nation fires its own nuclear arsenal it is going to send its own people into a state of confusion and semi-anarchy. Ever seen "The Day After"? You know power-gamers have seized the RP when the most powerful and devastating of weapons has absolutely no effect on the bystanders observing its use, psychologically.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1310147507' post='2752646']
Then perhaps the problem is the law of lack of consequences and not the nuclear weapons.
[/quote]
The community is full of cowards, they don't accept nuclear winter because it will hurt their pretty little nation. We should make it a rule to, you can't just launch dozens of nukes and get away with it. It isn't only mind-blowingly stupid, it's unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worse, it's god moding. I am completely willing to RP nuclear winter and the effects of atomic weapons to their fullest extent, but the problem is that most of the community from what I have seen will not and are too cowardly to go that route.

I'm going to start applying a standard that if the nation firing nukes upon me is not willing to rp the effects of the nukes, then the nukes are.. in short order.. hits, but having the same effect on me as they would on the person firing them. In short, no radiation.. all the bang for the buck of the nuke will be nerfed. It will be a huge, conventional, bomb.

You want nukes? You want to fire nukes? Better have a few people in your country protesting, having riots, and be ready for some increased cases of thyroid cancer and failed crops. You also better be RPing these effects on your nation if you're nearby and another country has been hit by them. Fair weather nukes won't be recognized either. Better be planning for fall out and nuclear war as well.

If you want your rads, you will go by the laws of physics which govern rads.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]

I'm going to start applying a standard that if the nation firing nukes upon me is not willing to rp the effects of the nukes, then the nukes are.. in short order.. hits, but having the same effect on me as they would on the person firing them. In short, no radiation.. all the bang for the buck of the nuke will be nerfed. It will be a huge, conventional, bomb.

You want nukes? You want to fire nukes? Better have a few people in your country protesting, having riots, and be ready for some increased cases of thyroid cancer and failed crops. You also better be RPing these effects on your nation if you're nearby and another country has been hit by them. Fair weather nukes won't be recognized either.[/quote]

You don't make the rules. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did for those who shall play with me, deal with it. Welcome to "Maelstrom Mode". I strongly encourage those who wish to adopt this policy to add it to their signature and go with it.

It is time for those with the will to see good RP stand up for reigning in that which obviously is out of control in the context of what these weapons represent.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess I'll just stay out of the bulk of open wars? Until such a time as this community wishes to return to the sane treatment of nuclear weapons and the realistic RP of nations instead of the ego puffing fantasy that it is? I could still join open wars where the participants are known to have adopted a similar policy.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1310149296' post='2752677']
Then I guess I'll just stay out of the bulk of open wars? Until such a time as this community wishes to return to the sane treatment of nuclear weapons and the realistic RP of nations instead of the ego puffing fantasy that it is?
[/quote]

By open war - I mean any war that is not specifically planed between you and someone else. So, if I decided to invade you today you'd have to accept the regular rules of nuclear warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or I could just.. you know, leave CNRP again for the community's collective incompetence on having such ridiculous rules? I'm not provoking anyone IC, I'm not going to provoke anyone IC. So the probability of war.. not that great.

Unless, oh, someone wants to metagame and go ahead and declare on the Angevins for the stand I'm taking here.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1310149540' post='2752683']
Or I could just.. you know, leave CNRP again for the community's collective incompetence on having such ridiculous rules? I'm not provoking anyone IC, I'm not going to provoke anyone IC. So the probability of war.. not that great.

Unless, oh, someone wants to metagame and go ahead and declare on the Angevins for the stand I'm taking here.
[/quote]

Feel free to leave CNRP - you threatening to leave is not going to get the rules changed nor is it going to persuade people to try. The only thing that it will do is cause people to roll their eyes at your god complex once more. If you dislike the rules, then either leave or try to change them in a reasonable way and accept defeat if things don't go your way. Furthermore, you provoking anyone has very little to do with whether or not someone will war you. It's a game - it does not have to be 100% RL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God complex? Name something "godly" I've done since returning to CNRP? I've made 3 posts, the bulk about civil ordinances. I am trying to change them in a reasonable way. I'm pointing out how stupid the old ones are and why they need to change.. and oh look, I was even kind enough to offer an alternative to how the rules could be arranged!

Metagaming is against the rules Yawoo.. or are you, like all the other rules lawyers here, only trying to interpret them as they best suit you?

IC motive is a requirement for going to IC war. There are limits on your game that you also are subject to. If you aren't, then we should all just quit now because the whole charade becomes a waste of our lives that is not necessarily balanced, fair, or entertaining.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me, Mael? Where have I metagamed in this thread or even outside of it? I'm merely informing you that CNRP is not meant to be 100% RL based nor can your 'rule' be enforceable in anything but a closed war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1310150305' post='2752698']
Are you kidding me, Mael? Where have I metagamed in this thread or even outside of it? I'm merely informing you that CNRP is not meant to be 100% RL based nor can your 'rule' be enforceable in anything but a closed war.
[/quote]

I am saying that someone who declares war over this thread would be meta-gaming. An IC reason to war must exist.

If you were to go to war with me because of what I've said here, it would be a meta-gaming event.

I realize CNRP is not meant to be completely 100% RL based, but ignoring the laws of physics you may as well just ignore reality altogether and say it's 0% RL based.

The rules I have mentioned here can be adopted community wide and may be usable in an open war if adopted. That is why they are mentioned at all.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I have ever protested that declaring war based on this thread would be metagaming. In fact, the only example I used was my own nation just randomly declaring on you to show you that your rule can't be applied there. If you want to be more realistic then how about we add economies, weather, etc. what you're proposing is a slippery slope towards work - it's a game, allow some leeway let it be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I see this as an opening to a door to a type of RP we never see on these boards, Survival RP. Where stories about the struggle to survive a nuclear winter and how nations work to cope would become more common. I do not propose engaging in complex systems, but simply saying "Nukes have consequences" does not require a lot, if any, work. Might even give nations a little more depth of character beyond the "I nuke you, you nuke me, we're a happy family." story that plays every other week.

Nuclear winter and fallout can be fun, because it is dramatic.

Nukes not having their effects is like having war with no casualties, it takes all the meaning out of it, all the sacrifice, the glory..

Right now our wars, at least most of the open ones, are just work. They're rarely enjoyable from what I've seen from either side and often have few stories and are more like accounting work. How many occupations have you seen RP'd outside of the one I ran in Vietnam when Kevs was over there? I might be able to count them on one hand. How many times do you see people rage quit? At least once every other war.

There are those in this community that wish to keep an absolute grip on the flow of the story by maintaining their own personal power no matter what.. and that is self-serving, childish, and ridiculous. Let the characters be themselves I say. I was once one of these people, but not anymore. I think my change has been for the better and I'd like to see others relax, release their grip, and start writing more together instead of seeking to dominate each other on a battlefield that has no real worth.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in the rules to allow occupations and people who are nuked in wars do have to RP the consequences if they shot nukes as well (just reaffirmed literally days ago) such as nuclear winter. If people don't want to RP occupations, that's their prerogative and there's nothing you can do about it.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...