Nuclear war

[dash9]

i am guessing you guys are from america and canada, you fellars are lucky with all the defence you guys have against nukes, i live in new zealand and our country cant build nukes and we wont. Our country is small and one nukeclear bomb on the north island alone will kill 90% of our population, yes thats 90% of our people, we had to declear our nation as a nuclear free zone so we can be less of a target, we dont even really have an army, we have like 2000 soldiers and no airforce now becuz our govt. got rid of it, we rely totaly on you guys(meaning USA) for our defence.

 

[Furry Spatula]

No offense but do you guys realy have anything to worry about. I admit i have very little knowledge about NewZealand and Australia. But what use would it be for a country to nuke NewZealand? Is it a good place to base troops? Also if your army is that small i doubt you realy need to worry about a nuke attack whiping 90% of your population. You are pretty safe from nuclear war down there. And now-a-days i dont think anyone is dumb enough to start a nuke war, maybe Pakistan and India or some terrorist group in the middle east. But then that would just mean India, Pakistan, and the US is realy at risk, The middle east is relatively safe, as no one would dare nuke that place if they want a supply of oil in the future. Frankly Nukes are so impracticle it makes no sense to use them as any country which does use them would be shunned on for decades. With all the sabre ratling over the Kasmir i doubt any of them would use a nuke, the trouble they would have with international relations would be unthinkable.

And don't worry. We're completly reliant on the states up here in Canada too. Why have an army if you dont need one? Just become an international joke i say . Man canada needs a military, *sigh*, well actually more than a handful of tanks would realy be nice . ok im off topic now. well i was off topic to begin with:crazyeyes

 

[dash9]

well, canada and new zealad are great countries, here were i live in Putaruru, we have the second best water in the world, we sell it to the states and aussie dearer than oil, haha, but you guys have the best water in the world, lol, if tthat means anything

 

[Furry Spatula]

Crap that means we are targets ohwell. Lets just hope other countries dont run out of water any time soon

 

[cat98]

Actually we have a pretty strong military considering our population. There are citys in South Africa that have a bigger total pop. Also, wouldent New Zealand be LESS of a target if it had a load of nukes ready to go? Nukes are the ultimate safegaurd against a world war. If the U.S was getting its ass kicked... KABOOOM!!! *Millions die in the city of #######* All out war just is not feasable in this day and age.

note: I said ALL OUT WAR, like WW2, not the current war on thugs that feel the need to be important.

 

[Exocet]

Originally posted by cat98
Also, wouldent New Zealand be LESS of a target if it had a load of nukes ready to go? Nukes are the ultimate safegaurd against a world war.

Not if I understand things correctly. I seem to remember seeing a map once of North America, showing what areas would be hit the hardest in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack. One of the most targeted areas was North Dakota (not a very highly populated state, on the whole) due to the fact that a large contingent of the U.S. military's nukes were housed there at the time (in missile silos). I guess the idea was that if they could launch first, why not try to cripple the enemy's retaliatory capability?

 

[dash9]

its all good and well to say if the soviet union hit america first, but they wouldnt/couldnt becuz the yanks are very intelligent military wise, if those star wars things are there the yanks will know exactly were all the nukes are in the world now, you dont know what technology the yanks have now, i am not saying all other countries are not intelligent, just that I think the yanks are very well off.

 

[Exocet]

I was referring to an old cold war scenario - the cold war has been over for quite some time now.

 

[dash9]

ok, i thought you meant today, srry, to change the subject again, i didnt really think bombers do that much damge compaireds to civ 2, they are good but i thought they would be a bit difeerent, tho i am not complaining to much , i do enjoy the game still.

 

[TomUz]

Already Einstein said :

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

 

[Maverick]

Well, lucky those who live in US, Canada who has great army and can protect themselves, and lucky those who live in country like New Zealand, cause your land is so peaceful, no one will touch you, but my country, Philippines, hell! we are in a strategic location for a base (proven in WW2), so it is most likely those big warmongers would want to establish base here, thus making us prone to nuclear strike, so we are also relying to US for protection cause we don't have the right machinery for a war, like air fighters, our fighters are so rusty a .45 caliber can gun it down.

 

[eggyweg]

Its all very well saying that a massive attack is the best way, but if you have no hositle incursion plans to back it up, it would just be a waste of time. Plus the fact you need a good back up plan when everyone else attacks you for using them.

 

[mmmBEER]

Nuclear war is winnable (at least from a military aspect). If you think otherwise, you're nuts.

IRL, it used to be that nuclear war was prevented because of MAD (mutual assured destruction). This is not the case anymore. Rather, if you're from the US, it would result in TAD (their assured desctruction).

Of course, from a cultural, political, environmental, moral, etc standpoint, it is inevitably a loss. This should be true of any war. Actually, anytime killing happens its a negative sum game. War is bad.

Though, CIV 3 is not real life, and therefore focusing your aggressions out on the romans in the year 1923 is fun!

[ most emoticons taken out of context ]

 

[Cerryl]

Really, who cares about realism anyway, it's a game.

Besides, nitpick the funny realism things, like Abe Lincoln ruling for 6,000 years.

 

[Maverick]

One way to stop the nuclear war is stopping the construction of manhattan project, once you notice a city constructing it, raze that city and stop the building, you can use a spy to destroy that improvement

 

[egosumcarlo]

Has anyone confirmed that launching a nuclear strike against a city has a chance of destroying the ICBMs and tactical nukes garissoned in that city much like any other artillery unit?

If this is the case, then MAD would rest almost solely on making spreading out your nuclear arsenal across several cities.

 

[zebomba]

Destroy the M Project instead if you wanna disable nukes.

 

[Exocet]

Originally posted by egosumcarlo
Has anyone confirmed that launching a nuclear strike against a city has a chance of destroying the ICBMs and tactical nukes garissoned in that city much like any other artillery unit?

I tried this, but couldn't seem to destroy the ICBM in the enemy city. I mean, I wiped out all of the conventional arms, but the nuke remained. And believe me, I didn't stop there. I dropped four more on the city, and still - no luck. Maybe it was just a freak occurance? Anyone successfully done this?

 

[egosumcarlo]

JUST an idea i got from seeing the film, Chain of Command


Instead of making ICBMs invulnerable to nuclear strikes, why not configure MAD into the game by making nuclear attacks take 2 turns to complete. On the first turn, the recipient of the attack will be notified and so he will have a chance to :

1.) launch his own ICBMs and nukes so they wont be destroyed
2.) or negotiate with the aggressor so the latter may abort his attack

i realize that the timing of this procedure may not be consistent with the timing of the rest of the game but just an idea.

 

[Gruntboy]

Surely the worst side effect from a nuclear attack is the instantaneous pollution? For turns afterwards people would starve from the grassland-desert transformation. Unless you strike first and use a lightning military attack followed by workers to clean up the pollution. Anyone ever wipe out an enemy civ in 1 turn with nukes?

IRL, people would starve - destroyed infrastructure, no farms, no supermarket supplies, no delivery drivers, irradiated food.