The nuclear poll (version 2)

[Peyoteros]

hard to believe, people voting without thinking...

[contact]

Voted no.. don`t want to use any strategical weapon in combat simulation games...

[Peyoteros]

as I said in the post before... funny, thats the same pattern as in national elections... that is why the world we live in is so beautiful... ha ha :unsure:

Edited June 22, 2008 by Peyoteros

[ViperVJG73]

Absolute nonsense for nuclear weapons in a flight simulation.

[SUBS17]

Absolute nonsense for nuclear weapons in a flight simulation.

 

Maybe you should stick to FSX then.:D

[Peyoteros]

Absolute nonsense for nuclear weapons in a flight simulation.

 

Would you care to share some more thoughts about your statement? Why is so?

And this is not just flight simulation, this is combat flight simulator from DCS ...

Edited June 23, 2008 by Peyoteros

[Phantom_Mark]

Why not just simulate it yourself, hit the power button on your monitor whenever the fancy for a nuclear explosion comes to you.

 

Alternatively tho, EMP bombs could be quite cool, shutting down your electrical systems as the blast hits you ( thats assuming the Ka50 has no EMP protection of course )

[159th_Viper]

.......EMP bombs could be quite cool, shutting down your electrical systems as the blast hits you ( thats assuming the Ka50 has no EMP protection of course )

 

That'll do Nicely - once Black Shark is released the Mods can Sticky the following post in the 'Bugs' Forum :D

 

 

 

"Irregular and unexplainable glitches/occurences, including but not limited to the odd CTD or BSOD whilst engaged in Gameplay is not - *I Repeat* - *NOT* - a Bug, but rather indicative of a NukeFanBoi spamming EMP's!"

 

:joystick:

[Pilotasso]

I would like to see high drag freefall nukes from the KA-50! :D

[VMFA117_Poko]

... and then surfing KA-50 on blow wave! :D

[A.S]

:doh:

[RedTiger]

Its really amazing how many people here read "nuke" and automatically think Hiroshima-level radius. I don't know whether to shake my head at them and try to educate them or just ponder that reaction philisophically. :noexpression:

[Peyoteros]

They think cos of nuke simulation the release of BS will be moved to 2010 :D

[Boberro]

Its really amazing how many people here read "nuke" and automatically think Hiroshima-level radius. I don't know whether to shake my head at them and try to educate them or just ponder that reaction philisophically. :noexpression:

 

In Poland even is panic fear against first Polish atomic Fusion Power Plant (people remember Chernobyl...) so I am not suprised that many is against "nuke" weapon. But technology progressed much so now Atomic is safe like never before.

 

Backing to topic again I vote for nuke :D

[RedTiger]

In Poland even is panic fear against first Polish atomic Fusion Power Plant (people remember Chernobyl...) so I am not suprised that many is against "nuke" weapon. But technology progressed much so now Atomic is safe like never before.

 

Backing to topic again I vote for nuke :D

 

The Cold War has made the world nuclear-skiddish and rightfully so. Strange thing is, when I think of the Cold War, the conventional warfare side of things is what instantly comes to mind, not nuclear brinkmanship.

 

There's a whole lotta politics involved with nukes. I dare say that if a country dropped a super-large conventional bomb on a terrorist hideout, no one would bat an eyelash. Now, drop a nuke, even one HALF the size, and its a huge deal -- as in a huge enough to start declaring war left and right. That alone is probably going to make ED think twice about them.

[GGTharos]

The problem is that nukes aren't clean weapons. A conventional weapon will still allow you to recover the area. Drop a nuke and all bets are off; further, fallout can cause a lot of issues down-wind ... very far downwind.

 

I was in poland when Chernobyl blew. I recall the crops having suffered, even though people in general were okay. This is why you do not want anyone setting nukes off.

 

Anyone who things dropping a large conventional explosive and a nuke of same or similar strength are the same thing needs a reality check ;)

 

Edit: To boot, no simulation simulates this in a meaningful manner, perhaps with the exception of political reprecussions in Falcon. Then again, I don't recall anyone saying they were nuked back for nuking ... which should happen at least some of the time, teach'em a lesson or two as they start an ICBM party because they sucked too much to properly influence a campaign ;)

Edited June 24, 2008 by GGTharos

[Peyoteros]

Writing down the names of everyone who voted NO!

[GGTharos]

I see you are taking a page out of Zanu-PF operations.

 

Would you like the UN resolution passed against you now or later? ;)

[159th_Viper]

I see you are taking a page out of Zanu-PF operations.

 

 

:megalol:

 

Ouch GG!

 

 

No Quarter Given!!!

 

 

That's Nasty even for you :D

[GGTharos]

What can I say, I'm not evil, I'm just drawn that way :D

[hitman]

Maybe you should stick to FSX then.:D

Why do you say that? There are only 2 reasons why anyone would use a nuke in combat...one of them would be as a last desperate measure to stop advancing forces (which means entire armys marching towards your city, which, quote unquote, would bog down our machines since literally thousands of units are on the field), and the other would be just to assuade their dominance over other countries a 'la first strike by wiping their forces off the map first. Regardless, either situation is both decidedly a single sided conflict, and/or one aircraft involved.

 

Wheres the fun in that? Yeah I know...you just want to see the purdy mushroom cloud.

 

Ukraine Weather Forcast: 50,000,000 Degrees and Partly Cloudy.

Edited June 24, 2008 by hitman_214th

[GGTharos]

Actually the declassified Russian cold war plan from the 50's-60's called for opening the war in Europe with a few tacnukes, right from the start.

[GGTharos]

I guess I need to explain this better :D

[159th_Viper]

Alternatively we can all hang on until ED announce the release of the New Flyable............

 

 

.................

 

 

.....................

 

 

..........................

 

 

The F-36 ROACH

 

[ATTACH]17814[/ATTACH]

 

That way we can all Frolic and Lob Nukes to our Hearts Content with a better than average Survival Rate lest we wear out the RCVR button!

 

:D

[arneh]

There's a whole lotta politics involved with nukes. I dare say that if a country dropped a super-large conventional bomb on a terrorist hideout, no one would bat an eyelash. Now, drop a nuke, even one HALF the size, and its a huge deal -- as in a huge enough to start declaring war left and right.

 

You'll have a hard time finding a conventional bomb twice the size of even the smallest nuclear warheads.

 

The biggest conventional bomb the US has ever used, the infamous "Mother of all bombs" has a yield of about 11 tons of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead ever made was the Davy Crockett with a variable yield which at its lowest setting was about 10 tons of TNT. So just barely smaller than the biggest conventional bomb the US has.

 

Really, compared to conventional weapons there are no small nuclear weapons. They are only small compared to bigger nuclear weapons.