I have come up with the a suggestion. In the modern age you should be able to protect yourself from nuclear war. So here are two buildings that would do it. But of course they don't always work. Nukes are always a worry.

Missle defence system
type:city imprvement
requires: rubber, computers
cost:130 sheilds
culture:0
effect: 55% chance of intercepting ICBM missles aimed at that city

The Giant Missle Shield
type:Great wonder
requires: rubber, computers
Golden age trait: Industious
cost: 1000 shields
culture:4
effect: puts a missle defence system on every city on the same contenent.

Just so ya know. The Giant Missle Shield is NOT FICTIONAL. The U.s. is strengthining their missle defence and the Idea is nicknamed "The Giant Missle Shield"

Please give your comments and rate this idea out of ten.

There is no such things like nuclear defence except holes in the ground and bunkers. In 1980 nuclear missiles was already invincible to interception. Modern american anti-missile system cannot intercept ss-18 or analogs (interception chance less than 1%), ICBM's like ss-18 cannot be damaged by laser,EMP and can be shot only by nearly-impossible direct hit. And they are moving in shroud of decoy targets so that nearlly-impossible direct in 95% will hit decoy. So there is only one possability that ICBM will not hit it's target - ICBM will be supressed before it'll leave the silo/sub/mobile lauch site. Even in near future there will be no protection like missile shield. Protection can be hardly gained against tactical nukes deliverable by bombers and short-ranged(SCUD types, but even then american anti-missile systems used in gulf war showed 85% ineffectiveness, but managed to intercept most of warheads launched on...if memory serves - israel)

further- even if they were to be intercepted there would be radioactive clouds all over the earth.
Unless we could come up with that "Mars Attacks" defensive inflatable rubber container.

Well a Missile defense would need to be space based (for rapid response to the target missiles starting point) and therefore couldn't be localized (it would have to be like the SDI wonder in Civ 3) and as PN pointed out would probably require some very serious weaponry (probably requiring a tactical nuke to disable the strategic one)

further- even if they were to be intercepted there would be radioactive clouds all over the earth.
Unless we could come up with that "Mars Attacks" defensive inflatable rubber container.

Destroying a nuclear weapon will not cause it to explode. A nuclear reaction is a surprisingly delicate thing.

Destroying a nuclear weapon will not cause it to explode. A nuclear reaction is a surprisingly delicate thing.

Once a nuke has reached a certian stage within its atmospheric reentry it has a PONR(Point of no return) where upon which if it were to be destrioed it would indeed release mass amounts of radiation if not a total nuclear explosion. Of course for a missle shield to actually work it would require something like a Rail gun based in space or SDI type system to knock out a missle once it reached it pre-space point.

Of course for a missle shield to actually work it would require something like a Rail gun based in space or SDI type system to knock out a missle once it reached it pre-space point.
I doubt it...berillium+titan cover provide ICBM invulnerability no nearlly all forms of damage. And space-based protection systems are something like space laser guns(american program with laser ended in n+1 billion $ space lighter) and space based nukes/missiles is something like woman driving car or monkey with grenade due to unstableness and ASTRONIMIC cost of support. Well...rail gun is a fantastic issue and even if it existed I can't believe that it can hit ICBM from space - ICBM is ever-manouvering and chanhing course(not main course) as a part of ICBM protection complex, not to mention insane calculation powers to predict every possible change of courses and compensation of trgeting mistakes.

Could we have a Great Wonder where you invest billions in the 'Star Wars defense system' that costs 1,000 shields and 200gpt but actually achieves nothing?

Could we have a Great Wonder where you invest billions in the 'Star Wars defense system' that costs 1,000 shields and 200gpt but actually achieves nothing?

I like that idea. :lol:

i was watching the History Channel one day and they were talking about a Russian plan to build a huge nuke the size of an oil tanker- the idea was to put it in an oil tanker and if things got bad to set it off- blowing a hole in the ocean (floor?) so large the earth would be destroyed - the reasoning being better to die a communist then lose to the west. Don't think it was ever built tho. The point is - that while a missle shield may not be feasible- the mutual destruction thing has been in place since the 50's. What would be more truthful is some sort of MAD (mutually assured destruction?) set up- rather than a fictional defense.

))))) that's like blowing away the moon. In fact nearlly all resourses in nuclear section was(and now too) consumed to make your nukes neutralize enemy ones before they can leave silos and launch sites. Oil tankers and ships at all awfully vulnerable to destruction...in fact I can't even imagine that fleet can do anything in nuckear war - right now countries armed with anti-FLEET missiles like Sunburn(Russian SS-N-22 missile, China/Iran got it don't know about american analogs' name) so all that "doomsday devices" can sunk in a matter of seconds)(such large material transfers cannot be unspotted, all silos' coordinates are known long before first ICBM will be placed there, so only mobile launch platforms and subs can leave unspotted).
I think that simply must be increased AI level of using nukes. They should be something everyone MUST be afraid to use. Their use must bear logical consequences-enemy must have increased unhappy citizens DRAMATICALLY(everyone evacuating and panic) and world responce. The bad thing is if two countries got nukes and want to wage war aainst each other they should end in "who-will-endure-more-impacts". And in theory nuclear war can start with massive descents of specnaz/S.E.A.L.'s in enemy territory to disable main command bunkers. So another proposal - to have ability to launch ICBM's and maybe tacs player HAVE to build small wonder - Command Bunker. So it can delay launch sequences or even destroy nukes itself(option for unit - disable nukes). That's a very hard to theorise here cuz, gladly, there was no such conflict in humanity's history. Pray we'll never know how it'll be on practice.

i was watching the History Channel one day and they were talking about a Russian plan to build a huge nuke the size of an oil tanker- the idea was to put it in an oil tanker and if things got bad to set it off- blowing a hole in the ocean (floor?) so large the earth would be destroyed - the reasoning being better to die a communist then lose to the west. Don't think it was ever built tho.

The US and NATO had a similiar plan to launch a nuke on every major city in the world so as to make sure if they went down so did the entire world, the idea of survival or death to all isnt based solely within the former Soviet Block.

The point is - that while a missle shield may not be feasible- the mutual destruction thing has been in place since the 50's. What would be more truthful is some sort of MAD (mutually assured destruction?) set up- rather than a fictional defense.

What you are describing is the "fear of the bomb" which the civilized world has feared since the end of the second world war, however the problem with that being that not every country truely has that fear. For instance India and Pakistan have no reservations about useing all out nuclear attacks on each other in the event of a total war. The only thing preventing them from going at each other is the fear of Super Power retrabution for useing such weapons.

Besides which the only way to add that to the game is basically have the AI set up to completely not ever use nukes unless attacked first with nukes, which would make near impossible for the AI to use it in a total destruction by conventionial means.

What we need is a combination of anti missle tech(ie mintuemen) with the MAD scenerios coming up between world powers which is most likely going to be the human player and one or two AIs. Also make it so more powerful nations will be more inclined to attack smaller ones if they do use nukes.

ahem, minuteman is not anti-missile, it's just another ICBM and act as preventive/vengerance attack unit like ss-18 and other ICBM's.

hmm- i wonder if some small nation in the future could send a nuke to hit an american city- and the americans - not knowing where it came from -launch and hit all over the place- (or russia, france ect) kind of a James Bond movie plot
(Although i bet we have sattelites that detect launches- course ya never know)
At any rate - say ur way behind and have no way to win- maybe they could have a total gamble option (like going to the poor house in the game "Life" and spinning the wheel in one lucky attempt to win)- the gamble being - u launch at the leaders and they launch at each other - like a 1 in 50 chance or something.

I think it has been established that you cant defend against nuclear wepons but there should be something that can ensure mutual destruction :ar15: :hammer:

Like pre-targeted ICBMs. I don't think modern mathematics can count the number of times that's been suggested, but here I go suggesting it anyway.

The US and NATO had a similiar plan to launch a nuke on every major city in the world so as to make sure if they went down so did the entire world, the idea of survival or death to all isnt based solely within the former Soviet Block.:lol:

I think someone's been watching a little too much Dr. Strangelove.Like pre-targeted ICBMs. I don't think modern mathematics can count the number of times that's been suggested, but here I go suggesting it anyway.Didn't the Call to Power games feature that? I think it's a cool idea, and would definately add new costs to using nukes - imagine having to assign a target when you built a new one, and that's the target it was stuck with . . . and you had to launch them all.

i was watching the History Channel one day and they were talking about a Russian plan to build a huge nuke the size of an oil tanker- the idea was to put it in an oil tanker and if things got bad to set it off- blowing a hole in the ocean (floor?) so large the earth would be destroyed - the reasoning being better to die a communist then lose to the west. Don't think it was ever built tho. The point is - that while a missle shield may not be feasible- the mutual destruction thing has been in place since the 50's. What would be more truthful is some sort of MAD (mutually assured destruction?) set up- rather than a fictional defense.


no it never was built, and it wasnt to blow a hole in the ocen floor, but to start a nuclear winter.

nuclear winter will be a result of MASSIVE nuclear detonations all over the globe(world wide nuclear winter). single bomb will be unable to start it

a bomb the size of the one described would have had the same effect as a large meteor impact....not an extinction level event..but a cloud would have covered the earth.

Well I can think of two thinkgs that could help this

1. make nukes cheaper
2. make them more destructive... this renders the MAD theory operational

Destroying a nuclear weapon will not cause it to explode. A nuclear reaction is a surprisingly delicate thing. It doesn't have to explode -- its debris will still scatter radioactive dust across the atmosphere.

It doesn't have to explode -- its debris will still scatter radioactive dust across the atmosphere.


Of course the nuke exploding would do that anyways so....you're avoiding the explosion, the dust was certain once someone launched.

Here is a rather extensive thread on the topic

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94655