Request Nuclear weapon

[funkyfranky]

No thanks! Dont need it, dont want it.

[FragBum]

M.A.D.

 

 

So what's the point after Cruise missiles we don't even get a chance to attack.

 

 

Why stop there. :D

 

[ex81]

We are all playing this game.

We shoot and trough bombs on military items and "soldiers".

 

Yes, it`s only a game, but even games should not go that far.

No need for nuclear weapons. Absolutly not.

And I hope ED is not even thinking about it !!!!!!!!!!

[Xilon_x]

in this game currently there are nuclear weapons on the mig-21 because not satisfy the blue side also the NATO airplanes do not have nuclear weapons

[Xilon_x]

the nuclear weapon is useful because with a single mission you attack the target and then run away before they intercept you and an effective weapon. With the nuclear weapon, avoid going back and forth between the base and the target to charge more bombs.

[Xilon_x]

Nuclear weapons have always been used since WW2 for both testing and wars I can not ignore its existence

 

[BitMaster]

No good idea !

 

 

I would not attend a server with nukes, out of principle.

[Xilon_x]

can we take a survey? to understand how many simmers in DCS would like to use the nuclear weapon?

[norbot]

Nuclear weapons have always been used since WW2 for both testing and wars I can not ignore its existence

 

 

Well, maybe you're living on another planet, but I can't remember nuclear weapons being used in any war, except the two being dropped on Japan at the end of WW2. But maybe you could enlighten us?

 

 

The military doctrines of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact provided for the use of nuclear weapons only if the conventional forces had become hopelessly overrun. After using tactical nuclear weapons, strategic weapons would most likely have been used in a second phase, wiping out all humanity. I do not think we have to simulate that in DCS. :doh:

Edited October 14, 2018 by norbot

[Svsmokey]

Beginning to think Op is a troll .

[Hammer1-1]

I say nukes for everyone. First of all, it IS just a simulator. Second, certain aircraft modelled here are nuclear capable. Third, just to see a correctly modelled nuclear detonation would be phenomenal. You dont like the idea, dont use them; thats your choice. You dont get to make a choice for everyone, especially when its something trivial like in simulators.

 

 

 

You know why Grand Theft Auto is fun? Its not because you can stop at every red light and avoid conflict...how stupid and naive can one person be?

[Bazooka]

My 2 cents worth.....as a retired B-52 crew member I spent most of my life preparing for nuclear war....and I can emphatically say that not a single person I ever served with wanted to use a nuke in war. All the pretty graphics and videos posted by folks on here DO NOT scratch the reality of what you advocate and most likely only a small percentage of players have ever been in actual combat. Most of us started flying the sims because we wanted to experience flight as best we could and as we get better we want to compete and pit our skills against others so we go further and develop scenarios and virtual theaters for "simulated combat". All that is cool and fun. But I fail to see where the fun would be by ratcheting things up to the level that one player and one weapon could end a simulated battle for all involved. Checkers on a park bench would be more fun! There are lots of things the folks at DCS could do to improve the sims and scenarios but this is one thing that shouldn't be even thought of!

[Kev2go]

First of all, nuclear weapons are lawful weapons unlike chemical and biological which are both banned by international treaties. Game play, the big strategic nukes would be no fun, the smaller tactical might be interesting, especially since it's believed that Russia would use them in any war with NATO over the Baltic's.

 

Are they moral? Well, the 1950's strategy of MAD and targeting cities with multi-megaton weapons was only an extension of how World War II was fought where all sides targeted cities, the only difference of the H-bomb was an economy of force where one aircraft could do the job of a thousand. Today's accurate weapons allow counter-force strategies that can eliminate the need to target cities as a primary strategy. Still, strat weapons are boring and bad for game play.

 

All that said, if there was a Europe theater with a Baltic campaign, allowing tactical nukes like the B61 family could make for some really interesting "Alone and unafraid" missions for Vipers and Mud Hens.

 

^

 

this thank you.

 

 

these sort of smaller tactical nukes carried by Fighter/bombers wont end a match in a single bombing run. Some people keep thinking NUclear weapons means asking for Strategic Nukes in ICBMS, and cant seem to comprehend that really its just consideration of adding tactical Equivalents to RN24 and RN28 such as the one carried by the Mig21 for Nato side.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Kev2go

[Svsmokey]

There is a lot of frustration expressed on these forums about the pace of new module introductions ; about the often lengthy time it takes to resolve bugs , about the seemingly glacial intervals between early access modules weapons systems implementation , about slow core engine optimizations and about the ever-increasing demands on our own PC's to handle the finished product .

 

It's really very simple . Every wishlist item that ED implements represents a diversion of resources from the above ! We need to be THOUGHTFUL about our desires . Does the net benefit outweigh the impacts on the above ?

[norbot]

My 2 cents worth.....as a retired B-52 crew member I spent most of my life preparing for nuclear war....and I can emphatically say that not a single person I ever served with wanted to use a nuke in war. All the pretty graphics and videos posted by folks on here DO NOT scratch the reality of what you advocate and most likely only a small percentage of players have ever been in actual combat. Most of us started flying the sims because we wanted to experience flight as best we could and as we get better we want to compete and pit our skills against others so we go further and develop scenarios and virtual theaters for "simulated combat". All that is cool and fun. But I fail to see where the fun would be by ratcheting things up to the level that one player and one weapon could end a simulated battle for all involved. Checkers on a park bench would be more fun! There are lots of things the folks at DCS could do to improve the sims and scenarios but this is one thing that shouldn't be even thought of!

 

 

+1 :thumbup:

[norbot]

There is a lot of frustration expressed on these forums about the pace of new module introductions ; about the often lengthy time it takes to resolve bugs , about the seemingly glacial intervals between early access modules weapons systems implementation , about slow core engine optimizations and about the ever-increasing demands on our own PC's to handle the finished product .

 

It's really very simple . Every wishlist item that ED implements represents a diversion of resources from the above ! We need to be THOUGHTFUL about our desires . Does the net benefit outweigh the impacts on the above ?

 

 

+1! I don't need correctly modelled nuclear detonations! I'd rather have more modules out of early access. So in my opinion ED should not waste time and resources on simulating nuclear explosions.

[ex81]

My 2 cents worth.....as a retired B-52 crew member I spent most of my life preparing for nuclear war....and I can emphatically say that not a single person I ever served with wanted to use a nuke in war. All the pretty graphics and videos posted by folks on here DO NOT scratch the reality of what you advocate and most likely only a small percentage of players have ever been in actual combat. Most of us started flying the sims because we wanted to experience flight as best we could and as we get better we want to compete and pit our skills against others so we go further and develop scenarios and virtual theaters for "simulated combat". All that is cool and fun. But I fail to see where the fun would be by ratcheting things up to the level that one player and one weapon could end a simulated battle for all involved. Checkers on a park bench would be more fun! There are lots of things the folks at DCS could do to improve the sims and scenarios but this is one thing that shouldn't be even thought of!

 

+1

and let`s close this Thread by saying again a clear and loud NO !!!!!

[Vitormouraa]

I don't get why people get so angry and rude with such requests? Jesus, this is just a game.

 

Every time people request these things people show their teeth like an angry dog at a stranger. No need to be this aggressive, I feel sorry for Xilon_x, he's just trying to have an idea if people want it or not.

[FSKRipper]

^

 

this thank you.

 

 

these sort of smaller tactical nukes carried by Fighter/bombers wont end a match in a single bombing run. Some people keep thinking Nuclear weapons means asking for Strategic Nukes in ICBMS, and cant seem to comprehend that really its just consideration of adding tactical Equivalents to RN24 and RN28 such as the one carried by the Mig21 for Nato side.

 

Sure, you guys really think the german government would let use the Soviet Union tactical nukes in the Baltic are without nuclear revenge? In the end it would ALWAYS end in a strategic ballpark session.

 

 

There is a good reason that no state (even the "Evil" ones) had never used such a weapon to this point. It's also pointless to contaminate an area you wish to conquer and have thousands of sick civilians to take care of. As with most of these nuclear events you can never estimate the whole magnitude on a planning table (see Chernobyl).

 

These points make the use of nukes in a simulation pointless, because it is a simulation… I'm pretty sure apart from your private server you guys would have trouble to find such a scenario.

Edited October 14, 2018 by FSKRipper

[Sierra99]

Not only no but HELL no.

[Mars Exulte]

Already been discussed, nukes are good for lagging out the game when hundreds/thousands of objects are blown up and little else. You can simulate a nuke run easy enough, minus the game crashing lag.

[Sierra99]

in a theater like the Syria, the Lebanon or Afghanistan where there are the ISIS militia hiding in the underground bunkers. THIS WEAPON AND USEFUL.

 

Sorry...You don't understand modern combat. Nukes are a weapon of absolute last resort. To even imply a Nuke is a tactical weapon that can be used on insurgents indicates a lack of understanding about the dangers of using Nuclear weapons.

[Kev2go]

Sure, you guys really think the german government would let use the Soviet Union tactical nukes in the Baltic are without nuclear revenge? In the end it would ALWAYS end in a strategic ballpark session.

 

 

There is a good reason that no state (even the "Evil" ones) had never used such a weapon to this point. It's also pointless to contaminate an area you wish to conquer and have thousands of sick civilians to take care of. As with most of these nuclear events you can never estimate the whole magnitude on a planning table (see Chernobyl).

 

These points make the use of nukes in a simulation pointless, because it is a simulation… I'm pretty sure apart from your private server you guys would have trouble to find such a scenario.

 

 

Then by that logic all Conventional Cold war Nato vs Warpact style scenarios should be removed too. OR for that matter Air quake servers, because those are not a "simulation" of a RL air combat.

 

No it doesnt actually. These points are irrelevant as we dont have Civilian casualty or fallout simulated, nor does it really need to be. Exactly that its a simulation, but still a virtual game at the end of it. Scenarios dont have to represent Ultra reality as there are already plenty what if scenarios that never occured IRL. FOr some people Simulation seems to mean Only identically recreating RL events. BUt they way i see it DCS is only a simulation of Aricraft Modules, whilst people more often then not treat overall environment as a sandbox to do what they want.

 

Again addition of tactical nukes doesn't mean\ ICBMS. Differences these tac nukes are usable wih flybale modules, an off map ICBM would not be controllable, and much more destructive.. Its quite a fallacy to present the Extremes of both ends an argument, such Either no nukes, or add All nukes.

 

BUt Again this threat was a reality thats why virtually every armored vehicle had a NBC protection system at some point in the cold war. Anyone not caught in the actual blast would be able continue operating in an armored fighting vehicle uncontaminated, and therefor unsick from the fallout.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Kev2go

[FSKRipper]

Its quite a fallcy to presetn the Extremes of both ends e arugment, suchEither no nukes, or add All nukes.

 

.

 

 

I think the vote is relative clear at this point...

[Kev2go]

I think the vote is relative clear at this point...

 

 

 

Lol hiding behind vote count how typical of the morality police. Theres now another benefit to add them, to spite people like you.

 

 

since when does that really matter? even an official poll enacted by ED d id not result things in favour of the community. JHMCS will come first despite other features receiving higher votes