Nuclear Weapons

[Tahsir]

No single nation would get an arsenal that size under my equation. It would require a minimum of 50 nations with maximum nuke count capacity in their arsenals. The Empire could at most get up to about 1/5th that, for example.

Considering that the US arsenal of Nuclear weapons could destroy the entire earth several hundred times over. 1/5th is to many.

[Lavo]

Also in regards to SDI; it can only be used to protect against nuclear strikes in your own land, not vessels on the ocean or forces within another person's territory (including your own). Correct?

Correct. This was first ruled when I tried to use my ship's AEGIS and other anti-BM systems to try and help Martens' Gebiv. The ruling still stands.

Ooh, I'm sensing a rule circumvent? Detonate a nuke in the ocean for the tsunami?

Not really. Tsunamis are a totally different thing and such. Plus, it can already be done now.

Get rid of nukes is still an idea

Yanno, I would be for it, as I find nukes make for bad RP. But this is CN, they are ingame, etc. So they aren't going anywhere. But, we can improve what we have and actually make them useful (aka. other then hitting cities and such) and even enjoyable to RP.

[King Adam Olivier]

*Houston do we have a go/no go for launch? Over.* *Heck, your the ones strapping yourself to a Roman Candle. The least we cand do is let you decide that. Over.*

I say this is a great idea! I have no negitives towards it except I have a fealling it could get out of hand like Lynneth said. ~Hath Said The King~

King Adam Olivier

[Californian]

Some excellent points on both sides. Here's a recap of what I got after rereading this thread with some good points from both sides, please feel free to make more comments. Please continue discussions, a vote on the issue will probably occur soon.

PRO-Change Current Nuke System Position

• Currently the 1 IG = 1 IC nuke rule does not allow for personalization for tactical deployment and is not realistic. Instead the idea is to have 1 IG nuke = ? (1-3) MT worth of nukes IC. The RPer is allowed to personalize and split up his nuclear arsenal as long as all nukes add up to his allotted MT value. WRCs would still allow the player to produce twice as much per day (ie if 1 IG nuke = 2 MT a person with WRC can make 4 MT each day).
  Essentially, changing the system allows the RPer to have more options and actually make the nukes effective tactically.
  
• SDIs would need to be reformed. Possible suggestions include:
  
  1. Sliding Scale system: If 25- nukes are launched at a nation, the SDI has the normal 60% of destroying them. As the amount of nukes increases, so does the effectiveness of the SDI. For example, if more than 200+ nukes are launched at a nation, the SDI would shoot down 90% of them.
     
  2. Block system: If a nation has many small nukes they would be blocked into groups of a certain MT (Such as the equivalent of 1 IG nuke). The SDI would have the normal 60% of shooting down nukes, however if it did block that group all the small nukes would be destroyed.
     
  3. Missile Defense system: Each Missile defense gives a 2% chance of destroying a nuke (total of 10% reduction with 5 missile defenses). This can be stacked with SDI to allow less nukes to come through.
     

  [*] If a nation is being unrealistically 'nuke carpet bombed/spammed' a GM would be able to step in and declare the action void.

ANTI-Change Current Nuke System Position

• More nukes are bad, there are already enough in the game as is and allowing more only creates more problems. No need to make things more complicated, 1 IG = 1 IC has worked fine.
  
• With more nukes, there will be more nuking and thus more cities and land will become radioactive wastelands. The effects of nukes are not RPed very well and thus this would create problems with RP, not to mention the fact that one nuking could destroy dozens of cities or a country.
  

Kevz Position

• Get rid of nukes altogether, why can't we be friends?
  

Additional Ideas

• Impose a max limit of nukes allowed, perhaps 300.
  
• Creation of a Nuke Database where people would have to report how many and what kind of nukes they have. This prevents people from switching their nukes at a moment where another kind may be more beneficial and ensures continuity.
  

Thanks to those who have put these ideas together especially Lavo, Lynneth, Sumeragi, Centurius, Kevz, Voodoo, and others.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Californian

[Teriethien]

Kevz Position

• Get rid of nukes altogether, why can't we be friends?
  

I support the Kevz position. Nukes aren't used so easily and recklessly in RL as it is in CNRP anyway.

[iamthey]

I still support the Pro-change position. My reasons are as follows.

*Creative Licence is increased by the proposal allowing people another area of military RP to customize.

*New Strategies involving nuclear weapons are now on the table as we can now divided our weapons into smaller tactical nukes rather than being forced to choose between one small nuke, or one giant nuke. (thus we could actually have some good quality nuclear RP)

*More realistic nuclear arsenals.

*It balances conventional war where the sides are asymmetrical (a single nation could target more enemies, or take out individual armies as they invade).

As for the idea to get rid of nukes, and rational behind it. I don't really think nukes are as much a problem as they were in the past; there hasn't really been a nuclear war since the FerrosPacific v lavo and KM war. Recently nukes have really only been used realisticly in cases where the nation in question was not a rational actor. (Like a north Korea situation) Not to mention banning nukes doesn't solve for the problem anyway, if nukes are banned, another WMD of some kind could easily be misused from there in the same way that Nukes are. Meaning that the only way to really improve war RP ; assuming that WMD's are always abused (which they are not), is to ban all forms of WMD OOC and that is something many including myself wouldn't be in favor of at all. Nukes are moreover present in RL regardless of the differences in their use so just outlawing a technology because it is frequently misused is tearing down a major precedent that I and many other High tech nations like (which that RL tech and experimental tech is guaranteed in RP). Finally it is present very bluntly IG and as it is CNRP at the very least what you have IG should be allowed in RP. (We can extrapolate added technologies, and caps based on IG from there as we do with modifiers, and cruise missiles).

Edited October 13, 2009 by iamthey

[Lynneth]

Either Pro-change and Block-system, or the Kevz position.

<.<

>.>

<.<

Not going to elaborate greatly, though, because I'm lazy.

[SpacingOutMan]

Um, no no no no to this suggestion. Entirely.

It's obvious that there is very little understanding about how nuclear weapons actually work here. First and foremost 50 megatons if the same as 100,000,000,000 of TNT explosive power. Keep that in perspective as we discuss the capability of explosion yields.

Let's start with looking at the original type of atomic weapon: fission. Fission was first theorized fully in 1938. All fission is is ripping nucleons of a fissionable material. In 1945, this is the explosion that comprises the Trinity Test. Later, two bombs were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 'Fat Man' utilized a plutonium-implosion bombardier system, while 'Little Boy' used a concussion explosive system. In both cases, shaped charges were utilized to create the right amount of explosive power to allow the nucleons of the fissionable materials to break apart, creating a massive internal chain reaction within the implosive force. 'Fat Man' was 20 ktons, 'Little Boy' was 15 ktons. The most powerful atomic bomb to be detonated was on April 20th, 1951, with the Easy bomb being dropped. This was a 47 kton yield.

Then came the Hydrogen bomb, which was first devised in 1941 within the Manhattan District. There were several prominent proponents, notably Edwin Teller. The first test of a thermonuclear weapon, however, wasn't until the early 50's when a 200 kton yield bomb was detonated. In 1954, the largest bomb detonated by the United States was Castle Bravo, yielding 15 mtons of explosive power (created a 1.8 km diameter crater). The largest used by the U.S.S.R, and therefore in history, was the 'Monster Bomb', yielding 56 mtons and was aircraft deliverable.

This is all fine and dandy, but there are several key things in mind. 1). Only 6 countries in the world have produced their own nuclear weapons. Why? The most critical piece of a nuclear weapon is the initiator, which is a small substance that spits out radioactivity to begin the required nuclear chain reaction and specifics for it have never been released to the public. 2). Tamper materials are very hard to come by. All the tamper is is a shell around the inner-radioactive material that reflects neutrons back into the substance, creating a higher yield chain reaction.

However, hydrogen bombs are extremely inefficient with only 2-3% conversion of atomic materials to explosive power. How a fusion bomb works is that it is meant to create internal heat high enough to fuse atomic particles together, forcing nucleons to shoot out of the nucleus because of the forces.

Hydrogen bombs are NOT the most efficient and explosive weapons in the world. In terms of efficiency, they are near on par with the original atomic bombs. The most efficient way of initiating a capable nuclear weapon is fission-fusion-fission weapons. The basis of these weapons are to cause atoms to break apart so rapidly and with such intensity that it yields enough heat to initiate a fusion reaction (byproducts being deuterium, tritium, and other hydrogen isotopes). This fusion reaction, however, needs to be surrounded by more fissionable materials, which then begin breaking apart because of the immense energy, creating a near-uncontrollable chain reaction that yields near-100% efficiency. This is so because the fissionable materials are contained at critical mass, or the correct total density for a controllable chain reaction to occur.

So we go back to how 50 mtons is equal to 100 billion pounds of TNT explosive power. First, and foremost, a payload of 50 mtons is simply not viable. Period. Why? If every country playing CNRP had nukes, this would require an immense requirement of initiation materials, tamper materials, and fissionable materials. These are not unlimited resources and would be tapped almost instantly, though that depends on the number of nations who are nuclear capable IG. If anything, reduce the 50 mtons to 20 mtons, and limit the summability of how these weapons are used. For instance, missiles laced with nuclear warheads do not have high explosive yields. Tactical nukes are not used to create devastating infrastructural damage.

I hope that most people realize that the heavy duty nuclear weapons (fission-fusion-fission nuclear warheads) are dropped via aircraft, not by missiles. However, there are atomic artillery and what not that were tested in the 1940's and 1950's. Conversely, submarine and subterra bombs have also been adequately tested, yielded amazing results.

So in other words, the way bombs are used and how effective they are should at least be in the ballpark of how they would work in RL... I wouldn't expect people to know how different bombs are affected by different factors and the sorts.

[king of cochin]

My suggestion is that tactical nukes should not be considered on par with Strategic nuclear weapons. Limit the missile deliverable warheads, the 100KT+ range to 20, but do not limit the number of tactical nukes or Nuclear EMP warheads, the only criterion being to have nukes IG. Else it would be simply absurd for a nation to have 20 nuclear warheads including missile warheads and smaller yield tactical warheads.

[Centurius]

I support the Kevz position. Nukes aren't used so easily and recklessly in RL as it is in CNRP anyway.

Actually the ratio of nukes to wars of cnrp has been quite low.

Also a good summary of the proposal

[SpacingOutMan]

My suggestion is that tactical nukes should not be considered on par with Strategic nuclear weapons. Limit the missile deliverable warheads, the 100KT+ range to 20, but do not limit the number of tactical nukes or Nuclear EMP warheads, the only criterion being to have nukes IG. Else it would be simply absurd for a nation to have 20 nuclear warheads including missile warheads and smaller yield tactical warheads.

I would very much agree with this. Cruise Missiles should account for tactical nukes, and then assign a specific payload amount to the IG-based number of weapons (my suggestion being 20 megatons, 25 with hidden silo) that are considered to be strategic weapons.

[king of cochin]

Rp rules already limit the max yield for nukes as 500KT except for those with WRC. Permit a max of 500KTx20 Strategic warheads, aka ICBMs.

Tactical nukes and nuclear EMP should not be having any limits as it would be too absurd in relation to real life.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I would very much agree with this. Cruise Missiles should account for tactical nukes, and then assign a specific payload amount to the IG-based number of weapons (my suggestion being 20 megatons, 25 with hidden silo) that are considered to be strategic weapons.

Cruise missiles already account for something...chemical and biological weapons.

[SpacingOutMan]

Cruise missiles already account for something...chemical and biological weapons.

Tactical nukes should also be encompassed in that number (50), but that's just me.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Tactical nukes should also be encompassed in that number (50), but that's just me.

Ah, I see.

[Centurius]

Still poses too much restrictions and lack of customability. The original idea is the best

[iamthey]

In regards to the SoM's wall a few things.

1) Very few nations are actually going to maintain ONLY a 50 MT nuke, as strategically its a waste. The vast majority minus maybe one or two people will break up their arsenals into smaller portions of at the most 10-20 MT for their largest weapons and >2-5 for their "smaller" (albeit its not small at all) weapons. The number of nuclear CNRPers is already relatively low so I really doubt that the earth's resources with regards to nuclear production would be realistically outstripped by a handful of nations maintaining 50MT bombs.

2) And maybe you could clarify this but if you look at the sum total of nuclear arsenals at their RL peaks it doesn't seem like all nuclear associated resources were outstripped in the process, and even if they were advanced nations are already capable of artificially producing the rarer compounds such as tritium, and plutonium.

3) As for moving tactical nukes to cruise missiles, I still think that would overly inhibit tactics using them, as most people reserve those limmited 50 slots for other strategic weapons such as chemical, biological, or EMP weapons. In reality tactical nukes aren't too much diffrent in blast radius from a large conventional. That being said how about a compromise.

Allow those nuclear without WRC to build up to 25 MT (with HNMS), allow those with WRC to build to 50 MT (With HNMS), for those with WRC they can build 2 MT a day, and for those without they can build 1 MT a day. That would cut down on the number of super massive nuclear weapons being created, solve the outstripping problem, and still provide all the benefits of the system, as far as balance, and artistic freedom go.

Edited October 14, 2009 by iamthey

[Sir Keshav IV]

Or lets just keep the current system? Its simpler.

[Centurius]

Or lets just keep the current system? Its simpler.

And with zero customability.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I personally would favor any balanced system that could still give customizability (boy is that word a mouthful).

[SpacingOutMan]

1) Very few nations are actually going to maintain ONLY a 50 MT nuke, as strategically its a waste. The vast majority minus maybe one or two people will break up their arsenals into smaller portions of at the most 10-20 MT for their largest weapons and >2-5 for their "smaller" (albeit its not small at all) weapons. The number of nuclear CNRPers is already relatively low so I really doubt that the earth's resources with regards to nuclear production would be realistically outstripped by a handful of nations maintaining 50MT bombs.

Strategically it isn't necessarily a waste depending on varied factors. One 50 MT nuke, along with proper amplification processes, could wipe out an entire essential city that would utterly cripple a country for decades on end. And again, I was basing the resources (as you mention) on the number of nuclear capable CNRPers. I don't know the number off hand, so yea.

2) And maybe you could clarify this but if you look at the sum total of nuclear arsenals at their RL peaks it doesn't seem like all nuclear associated resources were outstripped in the process, and even if they were advanced nations are already capable of artificially producing the rarer compounds such as tritium, and plutonium.

Tritium and plutonium are, indeed, artificially made in a nuclear reaction as byproducts. However, those resources are dependent on incoming resources to make an efficient nuclear reaction, meaning enriched uranium (or thorium) that is capable of producing high yield byproducts. Then comes the point of industrial capacity. To make an arsenal of nuclear weapons is a massive economic burden. It's such a large burden in fact, that most nations in CNRP (by way of RPing) simply aren't capable of following through (lower tier nations in that regard) a massive research program. It took the United States some 40 years to perfect a theoretical fission-fusion-fission bomb (most capable weapon never been tested) with ~97% conversion efficiency. There are many factors of economic and natural resources that take place, though one would surmise they are beyond the scope of a KISS RP.

3) As for moving tactical nukes to cruise missiles, I still think that would overly inhibit tactics using them, as most people reserve those limmited 50 slots for other strategic weapons such as chemical, biological, or EMP weapons. In reality tactical nukes aren't too much diffrent in blast radius from a large conventional. That being said how about a compromise.

Conventional blasts yield intense infrastructural damage. Tactical nukes do not. They pale in comparison in fact. A 200 kton blast is a pimple compared to what a normalized fission-fusion-fission hydrogen bomb could produce. Tactical nuclear warheads are ICBMs, essentially. As such, they should be treated as cruise missiles because that is what they are. They are meant to target military life, not military infrastructure.

Allow those nuclear without WRC to build up to 25 MT (with HNMS), allow those with WRC to build to 50 MT (With HNMS), for those with WRC they can build 2 MT a day, and for those without they can build 1 MT a day. That would cut down on the number of super massive nuclear weapons being created, solve the outstripping problem, and still provide all the benefits of the system, as far as balance, and artistic freedom go.

25 MT with HNMS, 40 with WRC and HNMS combined. With the WRC, 2 mtons should be allotted for few days, not every day. Uranium/thorium enrichment, transportation, nuclear reaction, transportation, securing the byproducts, creating a holding chamber, put together the warhead, install the proper mechanisms, upgrade the specs for payload transportation, and then install the actual fissionable material takes more than a day. I know that a day RL is several in CNRP, but it should at least be a week in CNRP.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Why should it be an RP week when it's only about a week in RL to construct a single nuke?

[Centurius]

25 MT with HNMS, 40 with WRC and HNMS combined. With the WRC, 2 mtons should be allotted for few days, not every day. Uranium/thorium enrichment, transportation, nuclear reaction, transportation, securing the byproducts, creating a holding chamber, put together the warhead, install the proper mechanisms, upgrade the specs for payload transportation, and then install the actual fissionable material takes more than a day. I know that a day RL is several in CNRP, but it should at least be a week in CNRP.

Yeah right, read this link and come with a real proposal http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nucl...nukestatus.html . Even the third world while somewhat limited controls around 60 Strategic Weapons the bigger powers many more of which some aren't even that big(France and the UK)

Edited October 14, 2009 by Centurius

[SpacingOutMan]

Yeah right, read this link and come with a real proposal http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nucl...nukestatus.html . Even the third world while somewhat limited controls around 60 Strategic Weapons the bigger powers many more of which some aren't even that big(France and the UK)

All those Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons are less than 10 ktons on average. So if you incorporate all of those with, say, Russia's count, that is a yield of 20,500 ktons, or 2.05 mtons. That is 2,050 tactical nukes. This is why I said tactical nukes should be applied to the cruise missiles count. Far too much abuse can be had if someone makes 2000 10 kton bombs. Hiroshima was decimated with that blast yield. Now take that and extrapolate it 2,000 fold.

Now for the counts I came up with, it's rather simple. The average strategic nuclear weapon will yield anywhere between 100 ktons and 300 ktons. It depends on the device, amplification materials, etc. The LGM-118A Peacekeeper, the U.S.A's newest ICBM, has a blast yield of 300 ktons.

300 ktons x 2000 missiles = 600,000 ktons / 10,000 = 60 mtons. And 300 ktons is top of the line for inter ballistic missile weaponry, which comprises most, if not all, conventional strategic nuclear weaponry. Taking an average of all the nuclear capable countries, they have 627.11 strategic nukes each, which is a cumulative blast yield of 18.81 mtons. And that is placing near-optimal yield in terms of efficiency and precision in the hands of all those countries.

Where I came up with my numbers weren't arbitrary, but realistic for a wide scale of implementation. There is no Cold War in CNRP. Rapid development of nuclear weapons is no longer viable in today's age because A) there is no true incentive and B) it's not economical to build a nuclear warhead. With advanced anti-missile defense networks, the externalities of building a nuclear warhead create a disgustingly large deficit.

Now where did 40 come from? Simple. 60 + 18.81 = 78.81 / 2 = 39.405. Round up and get a nice round number. The 25 comes from the HNMS wonder, naturally. And there should be a base of 20.

NOTE: I used a converter to go from ktons to mtons, so if my conversions are wrong, tell me so I stop using that calculator for my Atomic Bomb class.

Edited October 14, 2009 by SpacingOutMan

[iamthey]

Yeah right, read this link and come with a real proposal http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nucl...nukestatus.html . Even the third world while somewhat limited controls around 60 Strategic Weapons the bigger powers many more of which some aren't even that big(France and the UK)

Why does that have anything to do with the discussion cent I am not talking about the quantity of nuclear weapons, I am talking about the sum total of megatons if you add up an RP'ers nuclear arsenal? If you don't have WRC you can still sub-divide up the 25 MT into whatever amount of smaller weapons you like. And if you think its somehow unfair that someone with WRC has double the nuclear megatonage then keep in mind that the present policy allows those with WRC to multiply the max yield of EACH weapon by 20 mine only translates to 2.

In short I am agreeing with you; I want customization, I was just trying to reconcile the problems he pointed out. Next time read before you comment.

25 MT with HNMS, 40 with WRC and HNMS combined. With the WRC, 2 mtons should be allotted for few days, not every day. Uranium/thorium enrichment, transportation, nuclear reaction, transportation, securing the byproducts, creating a holding chamber, put together the warhead, install the proper mechanisms, upgrade the specs for payload transportation, and then install the actual fissionable material takes more than a day. I know that a day RL is several in CNRP, but it should at least be a week in CNRP.

365/30 = ~12 Days; so one day in RP is a little over an RP week. Meaning one day to 2 MT is more than fair.

Also yes I am aware that tactical nukes are not utilized to destroy infastructure, they are anti-infantry/ship/armor weapons thats why I don't think they should be included in the 50 CM count as they are less powerful than other non-nuclear strategic weapons. Thats why the nuclear arsenals should be customizable, and we should be able to have smaller tactical nukes with relatively no cost to the overall nuclear arsenal. Just to point this out as well; while I can see you are trying to really bring us back to reality, CNRP has never really taken into account natural resource limitations, economic considerations, or even International Relations theory. So attempting to design a nuclear policy that reflects RL to the degree that you are probably is a mistake.

Also Som If you could translate all this into some sort of Nuclear Policy proposal that would be great, at the moment I am not sure what you stand for.

Edited October 14, 2009 by iamthey