Nukes And ICBM

[Jack_www]

Today ICBMs are stationed in missle silos, and these silos are designed to take a direct hit form anther ICBM, and that might be anther reason why when you hit a city with ICBM it does not get destroyed. Most of todays nuclear weapons are not that big. By the way some of you guys it seems like you think that they are 20 megatons or something like that( i maybe wrong, if so sorry). Todays nuclear weapons are much smaller due to the fact that are now more accurate. And the only diiference i know of between ICBM and tactical nukes is there range, not there size of the bomb they carry. But I think fallout should be in the game. With nuclear winter I think that is already in the game, because if you deonate enough nuclear missiles many tiles of grassland turn into plains, and pretty soon you have very little productive land to produce food.

[aahz_capone]

At the risk of insulting some peeps (sorry guys), AJ:

Americans? rational? huh?



Anyway, I like that in civ the distinction is made between ICBMs and tac nukes. In "real life" there is such a thing as low-yield tac nukes, which can be used as an adjunct to conventional warfare. These aren't city busters like Hiroshima or what Nixon wanted to use in Vietnam. However few in civ and in the real world can get over their nuclear paranoia, so any device which is at all atomic would make the UN go balistic. (hmmm, poor choice of words)

I'm not saying that nukes are GOOD however, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that on a purley military strategic point of view... etc

I think that because we have nukes dictating political moves on earth the same should happen in civ, even if MAD never happened here it WAS a very real threat.

Shouldn't the AI get pissed when you move tac nukes to a city which borders theirs? Could we have a "Cuban crisis"-like diplomatic option in civ? You decide, next time, on Donahue! Same place! Same Channel!

[Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe]

i think nukes should be extremly hard to build even harder than now... im playing on regent level and then i get rocketry ( for free due to special abilitys ) but im against musketmen and cavalry with about 16 nukes to blast em with? its ****ing pointless!!!! nukes should be only given much later in the game with a lot more techs needed... so i went off and changed manhatten project for a much later tech... its worthwhile theres notin like a big nucleur war when every1 catches up on techs...

[steelehc]

These aren't city busters like Hiroshima

By the way some of you guys it seems like you think that they are 20 megatons or something like that( i maybe wrong, if so sorry). Todays nuclear weapons are much smaller due to the fact that are now more accurate.

....ludicous... ...kassiopeia's avatar )

Little boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a city-buster. It was small enough to be considered a tactical weapon now.

The Russians deployed a fleet of missiles, SS-18s, I think, armed with 50 megaton bombs, designed to destroy hardened bunkers, and pother such targets. Modern nuclear weapons are more accurate, but not much smaller, and easily large enough to completely ruin a fair-sized city.

Colonel Sanders, go to... Ludicris Speed!!!

Steele

[GePap]

On nukes

I completely agree with the notions of making fall-out different from industrial pollution and making the manhattan project a small wonder- not agreat wonder.
I actually think that ICBM's, besides their cost, which can be decreased in the editor, are well implemented- I agree that tactical nukes are too powerful. Nukes are really not meant for concentrations of troops, so the notion that it would kill all units in a square is wrong. Also, I don't think all cities should have a chance of ebing destroyed. Hiroshima lost about 40% of its population (in city, not met area) immediately, and then, with time, a simmilar number throught the effects , but it is still there.
As i said earlier, as good rule of thumb- 50% for metropolis, 75% for city, towns destroyed outright, with a wroker created as refugees.

[GePap]

Originally posted by steelehc


Little boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a city-buster. It was small enough to be considered a tactical weapon now.

The Russians deployed a fleet of missiles, SS-18s, I think, armed with 50 megaton bombs, designed to destroy hardened bunkers, and pother such targets. Modern nuclear weapons are more accurate, but not much smaller, and easily large enough to completely ruin a fair-sized city.

Colonel Sanders, go to... Ludicris Speed!!!

Steele

Just a correction- the SS-18 was armed with a 25 megaton warhead, not 50. The soviets did explode a 56 megaton warhead, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, but it was based on a design meant to give of 100 megatons. The 56 megaton warhead was too big to be a worthwhile war weapon, too big for missiles or bombers to carry. 25 megatons is still enough.

Also, only china really has megaton devices on their missiles now a days. 5 450kiloton deviced exploded in a given pattern at the right altitude will do more damage thatn a 20 megaton device, since the area of maximun damage is at its maximum. Thus, most states keep arpound large numbers of 3-500 kiloton warheads, which are still 20 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb even at the low end.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Dida
My opinion is the opposite of yours.
I think Man. Proj. should remain a GW.
And, the consquences of using nuke should be increased, after all, nuke has been used only once since it is made.

Wrong on both counts. Each nation that has nukes got it from their own program involving wildly expensive research and a significant amount of technical sharing (or stealing). This sounds exactly like a small wonder. Second, for good or ill, nukes were popped twice on Japan in 1945, not once.

World response to their use would likely be modified by their perceptions of the number available to the users. That is, if you had lots, the neighbors would shut the h**l up, if only a few, jump you before you wrecked everything.

[player1]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


Wrong on both counts. Each nation that has nukes got it from their own program involving wildly expensive research and a significant amount of technical sharing (or stealing). This sounds exactly like a small wonder. Second, for good or ill, nukes were popped twice on Japan in 1945, not once.

World response to their use would likely be modified by their perceptions of the number available to the users. That is, if you had lots, the neighbors would shut the h**l up, if only a few, jump you before you wrecked everything.

Why Mah. proj is NOT small wonder?

To make balance in game.

So if one civ gets it and biuld sevral nukes, the game wont be over, another civ would quickly get some and world will enter in cold war.

Realistic? No.
Balancing? Yes.

[aahz_capone]

Originally posted by steelehc


Little boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a city-buster. It was small enough to be considered a tactical weapon now.

Steele

my mistake, quite right. What I meant was that back THEN it was meant to be a city buster. Anyway, that aside, I think that there should be a period in which nukes could only be delivered by airpower (bombers, but figure that helicopters will have to do in civ3).

And what about multiple warheads on single launch systems? One ICB doesn't have to nuke one city, does it? It's not like civ makes a difference between a fission bomb or a fusion bomb, or even a neutron bomb.

neutron bomb, now THAT would be helpful, kill sh*t loads of peeps but keep all the infrastructuur..

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Second, for good or ill, nukes were popped twice on Japan in 1945, not once.

Only used as a military strike twice, but a lot more than 2 nuclear bombs have been exploded on this planet during tests.

[Jawa Jocky]

When your game is over you are asked, “Your score will no longer be kept, would you like to continue playing?” This can be translated into, “Would you like to take a few minutes to use all of the Nukes you’ve built (without any repercussions) on your enemies or your so called friends?”

In previous versions nukes were quite useful for stealing the enemy’s capital when their military was a lot better than yours. I’ve had a few come from behind space race victories thanks to nuclear weapons. I have yet to use this strategy in CivIII.

I don’t like being nuked, and I don’t like the repercussions from using them. Plus the damn things are expensive. I end up building a lot of ICBMs and hope I never use them. It’s very wasteful…………hey that is realistic!

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by kassiopeia
What self-respecting nation would divulge nuke technology to others?

France. Well, I don't know about the "self respecting" part, but France gave nuke technology to Iraq. Thank the gods for the Israelies...

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I think workers should not be able to clean pollution caused by nukes. We are talking about large areas of land, cleaning up only one square would cripple even the largest nations economy.
Look at the area surrounding Chernobyl; it will be thousands of years before it wil be habitable again.
So I think we need a new terrainsquare which produces nothing and kills of any unit that stays there for one turn or more. Workers should be able to build (rail)roads there though that would kill them in the end.

Well, Chernobyl has people living there again, hell that reactor is up and running. It is true that a Geiger counter is a common cooking utensil, but the place is habitable again...

Originally posted by aahz_capone
I agree that the manhatten project should be a small wonder, I mean the russians and the british and french had to work just as hard as the americans to get their nukes.

Except that the Russians stole the tec. from the Americans...

[TheDarkCavalier]

Russians didn't steal anything

Russia didn't steal no tech from America! It would be the opposite.

[Andrew Cory]

Yes, yes they did.

Originally posted by TheDarkCavalier
Russia didn't steal no tech from America! It would be the opposite.

I wonder if you are being facetious? the Soviet Union bought nuclear tec. from various scientist working for the American government. Follow this link for more details...

BTW: besides your poor use of grammar (which, due to my poor spelling, I hesitate to criticize), do you have any sources to back that up; about nuclear technology, to be more specific?