The nuclear poll (version 2)

[arneh]

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.

 

It was just as much NATO's policy, due to the Warsaw Pact's bigger conventional force they figured the only way to stop them was to use nukes.

 

E.g. from wikipedia:

"Small teams of the Atomic Battle Group would be stationed every few kilometers to guard against Soviet attack, using the power of their nuclear artillery shells to kill or incapacitate advancing troop formations and irradiate the area so that it was uninhabitable for up to 48 hours, long enough to mobilize NATO forces."

[RedTiger]

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.

 

Yes, I understand this, the point was to illustrate the political repercussions of even considering using a nuclear weapon. I know the weapons are not clean and there really isn't any comparison of the after effects with conventional bombs. I'm arguing that one doesn't even have to take it that far, the mere consideration by a government of using one could very well be the end for any international goodwill their country ever had. The only way I'd ever think they'd be used is in retaliation to another nuclear strike. Scary stuff...

[Malleus]

Yes, it is irresponsible to model a cold war scale battle without this horror of the nuclear card

 

Hey wait a second, what 'cold war scale battle'? I thought DSC: Black Shark's campaign scenario will be more of a plausible Georgian - Russian almost assymetric conflict in Abkhazia, then a full on NATO vs Russia shootout.:huh:

[eurofor]

Hey wait a second, what 'cold war scale battle'? I thought DSC: Black Shark's campaign scenario will be more of a plausible Georgian - Russian almost assymetric conflict in Abkhazia, then a full on NATO vs Russia shootout.:huh:

I don't think it's decided to be anything. It's what you want it to be. Both those scenarios are possible.

[SUBS17]

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.

 

 

There are actually more reasons than that where a nuke could find its way into a conflict such as terrorism, political tension and escalation or even a renegade General attempting a coup, mafia weapons sale etc. Lots of reasons and so I wouldn't rule it out as something not to be implemented in any modern day combat flight sim either now or later as a part of a mod or addon. Don't just think the good ol cold war scenario either nuclear bombs and radioactive material are throughout Eastern Europe and they aren't exactly in secure loactions either so it could actually be part of a conflict in that region. If the map expands in later versions of DCS then the political factors will also effect missions as well as ROE. The fact there is even a poll on this topic I think shouldn't be necessary since the Devs will only implement such features if they had a reason, the time and the resources but to rule such a feature out on political correctness or that you think a PC can't handle it is rather weak since even a 486 sim managed to resonably display the effects enough in previous sims. And it doesn't require as much detail as some people are mentioning. This is a flightsim not a nuclear effects simulation so you don't need to model every particle effect.

[Peyoteros]

Horror of nuke. After seeing such destruction I start asking myself do I want nuke in BS even if it is simulator?

 

Edited June 25, 2008 by Peyoteros

[Canada]

Horror of nuke. After seeing such destruction I start asking myself do I want nuke in BS even if it is simulator?

 

 

I really don't understand why killing virtual people is bad. Heck, more than half the gaming industry is based upon killing people in various ways.

[Peyoteros]

well, I voted yes :D

[zakobi]

I voted no, because i had three nightmares about 'em in a row. (You just laugh)

Also that the planes wich drop these weapons, seems not to be flyable in BCS...

[RedTiger]

I really don't understand why killing virtual people is bad. Heck, more than half the gaming industry is based upon killing people in various ways.

 

Yeah, I kinda find the whole notion of "I'll drop CBUs on an armored column and kill 12 tanks (12 x 4 or 12 x 3 = 36-48 people) and kill those tank crews, no problem...but nukes? No way! Thats just too many virtual people to slaughter all at once!" kinda humorous.

 

You can argue anything you want, but arguing about the portrayel of mass loss of life is kinda funny when this is a combat flight sim. So killing a few up close and personal is ok, but killing massive amounts from afar isn't? :doh:

[gl33k]

it's just shader writing. yes, it should be there !

[GGTharos]

You should be more worried about my 8 AIM-120N SPAMRAAMS than the little dead virtual people.

 

Yeah, I kinda find the whole notion of "I'll drop CBUs on an armored column and kill 12 tanks (12 x 4 or 12 x 3 = 36-48 people) and kill those tank crews, no problem...but nukes? No way! Thats just too many virtual people to slaughter all at once!" kinda humorous.

 

You can argue anything you want, but arguing about the portrayel of mass loss of life is kinda funny when this is a combat flight sim. So killing a few up close and personal is ok, but killing massive amounts from afar isn't? :doh:

[Boberro]

I don't scare your Spamrams :devil_2:

[Peyoteros]

Come on peopleoids, human players won't get to nuke all the server (would be awesome thou :D ),

....thou AI planes, the ones which really can carry, should be able to do so, at least in single player mission, where. if you fail your objectives, your side will get nuked, or some terrorist scenario, just let your imagination fly... Nuke will add some thrill to the sim. GG, you don't have to say anything :D Edited June 25, 2008 by Peyoteros

[GGTharos]

You don't have to say anything either. ;)

Nukes won't add anything but nuked spawnpoints ;)

Edited June 25, 2008 by GGTharos

[Peyoteros]

Oh you :P

[monotwix]

Oh yeh?

I can't see it being added to DCS series any time soon.

And in any case, what it would or could do would be up to the mission builders and movie makers.

In a decent modern combat sim the use of nukes should not even be mentioned.

Got to stick to the modern politics as well.

[Peyoteros]

writing down: mo-no-twix... :D

[RedTiger]

You should be more worried about my 8 AIM-120N SPAMRAAMS than the little dead virtual people.

 

I was gonna make a snide remark about the ease of dodging those, but then I realized I was talking about dodging a nuclear explosion. :joystick:

[159th_Viper]

writing down: mo-no-twix... :D

 

:megalol:

 

Uncle 'Bob' at it again..............mmmmmmm :D

 

 

I was gonna make a snide remark about the ease of dodging those, but then I realized I was talking about dodging a nuclear explosion. :joystick:

 

I'm sure a Variable of the 'Printscreen' phenomena or another Nefarious Macro will sort it out no bother......:D

Edited June 25, 2008 by 159th_Viper

[GGTharos]

Not with a 500m prox fuze :D ... or when it lands on your airfield after missing you. :D

[Peyoteros]

So GG, making nukes already? Make sure they ready with the next build by weekend :P

P.S. Good man! +2

Edited June 25, 2008 by Peyoteros

[Phantom_Mark]

so now Atomic is safe like never before.

 

lol, thats a classic, I never thought I could see those two words together.

 

Damn I will sleep well tonight, safe in the knowledge that at least the terrorists can only get the safe nukes now :D

[RedTiger]

lol, thats a classic, I never thought I could see those two words together.

 

Damn I will sleep well tonight, safe in the knowledge that at least the terrorists can only get the safe nukes now :D

 

LOL. I missed that one. It sounds like some 1950s American public service announcement film! :lol:

[cool_t]

lol