Nuclear Winter

[PieceOfMind]

Not sure what you're on about TMIT. I'm not trying to say anything about GW or nuclear winter. Just wanted to point out that just because technology permits something doesn't mean it will happen. As you said, competitive advantages and profit are bigger forces.

I mentioned flying cars because 20 years or so ago they thought we might be getting around in flying cars eventually. We have the technology for it and there have been plenty such things built but they never really took off (if you'll excuse the pun).

I do think that sending off colonists to another star system in the next 40 years is far fetched.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not sure what you're on about TMIT. I'm not trying to say anything about GW or nuclear winter.

I mentioned flying cars because 20 years or so ago they thought we might be getting around in flying cars eventually. We have the technology for it and there have been plenty such things built but they never really took off (if you'll excuse the pun).

Actually I was just making a really obscure jetson's reference (in that cartoon, everyone lives high up in the sky, flies around in cars, and one could infer there is a ton of pollution below, so it was too tempting a reference), since I saw something about flying cars .

I agree that colonization of other systems in 40 years is very unlikely barring some major incident we don't know about yet. Even colonization of bodies within THIS system isn't terribly likely really.

But the point about it being physically possible while nuke GW isn't is still valid .

 

[capnvonbaron]

The problem with flying cars: people have a hard enough time driving on windy days, and that is with all four wheels on the ground. Imagine trying to fly-drive around Chicago in the winter...

And, to you proponents of super-fast spaceships: What do you think happens when you hit even a tiny rock going 10% the speed of light? Dust particles, even, would be a problem at those speeds. Space is hardly a sterile vacuum, even once you leave the solar system behind...

 

[JBConquests]

And, to you proponents of super-fast spaceships: What do you think happens when you hit even a tiny rock going 10% the speed of light? Dust particles, even, would be a problem at those speeds. Space is hardly a sterile vacuum, even once you leave the solar system behind...

Well, that isn't a problem. You just need to put your shields up...

 

[kochman]

And, to you proponents of super-fast spaceships: What do you think happens when you hit even a tiny rock going 10% the speed of light? Dust particles, even, would be a problem at those speeds. Space is hardly a sterile vacuum, even once you leave the solar system behind...

I don't know...
And, explain to me why dust particles would be a problem at those speeds?
Physics would say that it wouldn't be a problem as far as I was taught... Like when a fly hits a truck...

 

[r_rolo1]

I guess that a lot of people here fail to grasp the diference between technical issues and physical impossibilities... Bringing the flying car example: there is nothing in physics that forbids us from making a 4 seat flying equivalent of a car. Ok, there are a lot of issues to resolve for it to be a viable option ( the power delivered , the control of the ship itself, the fuel bill ... ) , but that is far diferent of being physically impossible. The game SS falls in that cathegory: there is nothing in the laws of physics that forbids a SS flying @ 0,3-0,5 c to Alpha centauri ( those are roughly the speeds if you try to calculate it from fly times ingame ), but there are a LOT of pratical issues...

But there is no way of a surface nuclear bombfest ( to be honest , even a large enough conventional bombfest would do the same ) in this planet produce Global warming. The physics forbid it, period ( unless, like I said before, the nukes blow out so fast that the atmosphere can't expel the energy out fast enough, and even then it would most likely boil out ... and that is definitely not the ingame GW ).

 

[Willem]

I don't know...
And, explain to me why dust particles would be a problem at those speeds?
Physics would say that it wouldn't be a problem as far as I was taught... Like when a fly hits a truck...

The physics you were taught were wrong then. Even the tiniest object striking a ship at those speeds could do some serious damage. Think of it in terms of a head on collision. The faster the two vehicles are each travelling, the more devastating the collision will be.

 

[kochman]

The physics you were taught were wrong then. Even the tiniest object striking a ship at those speeds could do some serious damage. Think of it in terms of a head on collision. The faster the two vehicles are each travelling, the more devastating the collision will be.

In terms of a head on collision... from what I have seen... the fly that hits my car head on... it dies, and my car is fine. Doesn't hardness/density have something to do with this?

 

[capnvonbaron]

Ok, quick equasion. WARNING! SCIENCE CONTENT!!

Kinetic energy is measure as joules (J) = one-half mass (m) x velocity (v) squared. So, J = .5mv^2.

A typical 36 grain (or 2.3 g -> .0023 kg) .223 JHP bullet travelling 1,140 m/s has a kinetic energy of roughly 1,524 J. I think we can all agree that a .223 round can do a fair bit of damage to whatever it hits. For those who don't have a clue, a .223 is quite capable of going completely through the average car door, for example, and still have plenty of energy left over to go most (if not all) of the way through a person on the other side. Bullet-proof vests won't stop a .223 fired at even mid-range.

10% of the speed of light is 29,979,245.8 m/s. Therefor, with the power of math, we can figure out the weight of a grain of dust to do the same damage as a .223 round fired at close range.

.5 * m(?) * (29979245.8)^2 = 1524 J
m(?)= 2*(1024 / 898755178736817.64)
m(?) = 2.27 e -12 kg, or .00000000000227 kg, or .000000000227 g

a typical grain of sand weighs maybe .025 g. So that should give you an idea of just how big a particle it might take to end that AC mission pretty quick

EDIT: Or, if you did hit a .025 g grain of sand going 10% the speed of light, it would be like hitting a 15,000 kg city bus going roughly 1,935 m/s (or about 7,000 km/h )

 

[kochman]

Interesting...
I wonder if that equation holds up at such extreme numbers. Is it not possible that it wouldn't?
Anyhow, I guess we are a long way from proving that one... unless there is some study you know of... I don't know much about this stuff, admittedly. It seems hard to swallow that surface toughness/density are not considered at all by the equation...

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yeah I'm not sure kinetic energy ratios are the only important thing here.

Of course, if you did have a ship going 10% the speed of light relative to its surroundings I think you would have a pretty thick front end on it. A grain of sand might have a lot of kinetic energy relative to the ship but it's not going to penetrate that far. A bullet can go through a car door because the door is relatively thin when you take into account the mass and speed of the bullet.

I am not 100% sure about this (I can't exactly go and check it myself) but I think in deep space objects even the size of a grain of sand are pretty rare.

 

[6K Man]

I can see why the game designers wanted to implement a mechanism to deter people from using nukes indiscriminately. Global warming is a pretty unrealistic mechanism, though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can see why the game designers wanted to implement a mechanism to deter people from using nukes indiscriminately. Global warming is a pretty unrealistic mechanism, though.

It's also a completely bogus and stupid mechanism if that was their goal, as it does precisely nothing to reduce the chances of the nuker winning the game.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think it's meant to make the nuker thing to himself, "hmm, maybe nuking the world isn't the best way to conduct global diplomacy if I want to continue living on the planet." Now that's a political message.

Anyway, TMIT, if you really want to see broken and unrealistic, try your nuke end-game strategy in the Next War mod. Civ4 GW mechanics pale in comparison to the stupidity present in that mod.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've not played it, but I've heard of it cracking the world like an egg and causing the barbs to win (forget whether it gave them domination or conquest).

Of course no amount of human based surface explosions of any kind could come even remotely close to doing that. You'd need an utterly ridiculous amount of force/explosion power or a huge astronomical body slamming in at very high speeds. Nukes aren't FF VII sephiroth meteor summons x10000 or so, so yes it's quite ridiculous .

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, and I think it takes as few as 20 nukes before it happens. :suicide:

That feature in particular was significant enough in its stupidity to ruin the entire mod. Now no one plays the mod, all because someone wanted to submit their ignorant political view.

It definitely makes me appreciate that GW in BtS at least doesn't ruin the game. It's just a minor annoyance.

 

[r_rolo1]

Just for the record, since patch 3.13 that the next War scenario only does that if you are playing the scenario that comes with the mod. Anyway the thing continues unplayable there, even if because someone forgot to tell the AI to count nukes ( and barbs get a dom win, btw ), and as nukes ,unlike it happens in stock game , come roughly in the middle of the tech tree .... Imagine how good the stock game would be if barbs won a dom win after 20 cannons died....

In the end the mechanic is exactly the same as in the stock game: nukes are counted and after a certain number of them sh*t happens. Regardless of spawning desert, finishing the game and give the victory to barbs or spawning banana resources, it is a bad mechanic in it self, because it is irreversible, and it even gets worse because the AI does not understand it.

 

[Willem]

Anyhow, I guess we are a long way from proving that one...

Not really, it's a situation we have to deal with all the time with objects in Earth's orbit. Space debris is becoming a major issue, with more and more junk floating around up there. It doesn't take a very large object to disable a satellite, or to cause problems for the space station. And in orbit, nothing's even close to approaching 10% of the speed of light. We've been aware of the danger for a long time now, but so far we've been lucky.

 

[kochman]

Danger? Really?
Won't most of that stuff burn up on re-entry?

 

[BrainEater5000]

Danger? Really?
Won't most of that stuff burn up on re-entry?

Losing enough communication satellites would create panic and danger here on earth.