Nukes should = Nuclear Winter, not Global Warming

[Kranden]

If you have ever played fallout it would be something like that.

Not the world i would want to live in.

 

[art_vandalay]

The problem is not only the dust thrown up into the atmosphere. Its the massive fires that would throw massive amounts of soot into the air in a short period of time. In the calculations done in the 80's by the TTAPS group (google it), a "normal" nuclear exchange , with approx. 5 thousand megatons launched, with over half of the weapons launched at more isolated "hard" military targets, would result in near total darkness for the northern hemispehere and perhaps the whole planet for at least 6 months , with a temp drop of around 40C or 72 F. Its possible as little as one hundred megatons launched on one hundred cities could produce this result, given the massive amounts of soot available to be burned in cities. When the darkness lifted, the ozone would be so depleted that a lethal sunburn could be had in half-an hour, with blindness also possible after a short time. Thats a recipe for the extinction of our species.

Its funny its only in the 80's scientists started doing studies on what climate effects a thermonuclear war would have on the earth as a whole. Before that people just assumed there would only be the immediate disintegration/burn deaths with the radiation deaths following soon enough.

Its even more funny that generals and politicians keep on trying to adopt military plans that assume hardly no nuclear weapons would land on cities in a first strike scenario, because "it would be crazy for the enemy to launch on our cities if we only targeted his nuclear/strategic capabilities." You cannot allow a nuclear weapon to land on your soil without retaliation, otherwise your people will view you as a judas and a traitor for eternity.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

It's kind of hard to care what your people think of you when you've just been involved in the destruction of their planet and are now ruling them with an iron fist from inside your cosy bunker.

It seems unlikely that any first strike would be a full-scale nuclear attack. More likely to be tactical strike against conventional forces (followed by escalation, probably).

 

[art_vandalay]

"It's kind of hard to care what your people think of you when you've just been involved in the destruction of their planet and are now ruling them with an iron fist from inside your cosy bunker."

The leader in question wouldn't have launched any weapons yet, he would either be on the receiving end of a first strike, or that "small tactical" nuclear weapon would have just landed on his soil or forces, maybe because the other guy is losing the conventional war.

My main point here is that its unrealistic to believe you can control a nuclear war. Once that first nuclear weapon gets flipped out, no matter how "small" or "merely tactical" it seems to the generals and senior politicains, its going to be very very hard to pull back.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Perhaps. No one's really sure for obvious reasons.

 

[frob2900]

The problem is not only the dust thrown up into the atmosphere. Its the massive fires that would throw massive amounts of soot into the air in a short period of time. In the calculations done in the 80's by the TTAPS group (google it), a "normal" nuclear exchange , with approx. 5 thousand megatons launched, with over half of the weapons launched at more isolated "hard" military targets, would result in near total darkness for the northern hemispehere and perhaps the whole planet for at least 6 months , with a temp drop of around 40C or 72 F. Its possible as little as one hundred megatons launched on one hundred cities could produce this result, given the massive amounts of soot available to be burned in cities. When the darkness lifted, the ozone would be so depleted that a lethal sunburn could be had in half-an hour, with blindness also possible after a short time. Thats a recipe for the extinction of our species.

Its funny its only in the 80's scientists started doing studies on what climate effects a thermonuclear war would have on the earth as a whole. Before that people just assumed there would only be the immediate disintegration/burn deaths with the radiation deaths following soon enough.

Its even more funny that generals and politicians keep on trying to adopt military plans that assume hardly no nuclear weapons would land on cities in a first strike scenario, because "it would be crazy for the enemy to launch on our cities if we only targeted his nuclear/strategic capabilities." You cannot allow a nuclear weapon to land on your soil without retaliation, otherwise your people will view you as a judas and a traitor for eternity.

This might be of interest w.r.t. to the discussion of the effects of nuclear war. Its a docudrama produced by the BBC during the height of the Cold War about the effects of nuclear war on the people in Britain:

Threads - Effects of Nuclear War (BBC, 1984) Released to the public domain.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488

(NOTE: Its movie length, ca 90 minutes. Disturbing scenes following the dramatization of a Nuclear attack on Sheffield. The film addresses radiation sickness, massive collapse of the health services, starvation, epidemics, UV depletion and the collapse of many things we take for granted in modern society)

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Society doesn't completely collapse in Threads...

 

[frob2900]

Society doesn't completely collapse in Threads...

Yeah, you're right. Pre-war society does, though

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Well, it shows a surviving police force, some rule of law and some kind of surviving administrative structure.

 

[frob2900]

Well, it shows a surviving police force, some rule of law and some kind of surviving administrative structure.

Yeah, you're right. The modern globalized world with all it's amenities collapses, though

[EDIT] I suppose what you might be getting at is this: "Mad Max it ain't"

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Yes, I apologise. I was probably being pedantic*.

 

[Todd Hawks]

Who cares whether you have global warming or nuclear winter? The effect is the same: useless tiles for your cities.

 

[frob2900]

Who cares whether you have global warming or nuclear winter? The effect is the same: useless tiles for your cities.

So therefore the game-mechanic should be fixed.

 

[SHADOW-XIII]

I agree a little bit, there should be something that suppose to limit throwing a lot of nukes to enemies, so I certainly would chanage few things in game:

Global Warming - stays in game, it's triggered by total in all civs. This can add extra diplomacy option: Ask other to limit theirs (or for UN). Global Warming shouldn't be exacly tiggered with some kind of level of , only should change slowly, for example, the more the more visible Global Warming effects. Effect: variety of effects inlcding new desserts, plains, less polar caps, less tundra, some tiles changed to water (sea level rise), a lot of events (storms at sea slows all players or fire spreads, burning forests etc)

Nuclear Fallout - one or few clouds of nuclear radiation (few tiles wide), wherever the cloud is, causes "fallout" in all tiles in its area (no bonuses, prodution, commerce, food from those tiles until fallout move to other place), if cloud/fallout will stay there long enough it should cause permantet loss of 1 food or/and prduction or/and commerce

 

[TheTerminator97]

You guys need to stop being retards.

SPOILERS: ALL OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAVE BEEN WARMING AS WELL AS EARTH!

Nukes are not some magical device which destroys the planet. 2000 nuclear tests and no noticeable increase in background radiation, nor is there any noticeable fluctuations in climate.

Try moving out of the city some time, you'll be startled by how uninhabited the planet is.

Also: there is no where near enough nuclear weapons to end life on this planet. YES, there is enough to destroy all towns above a couple thousand people, but there is not enough to destroy humanity. Only a fool would think so, one who lives in fear of all the magical uncertaintys of the world we live in.

Nuclear explosions don't cause fires, if anything they would put out fires.

You guys need to stop reading these ******** doomsday websites and actually open a book and learn a little bit.

Moderator Action: Warned! - Flaming/Trolling. We don't allow abusive statements here!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheTerminator97]

MAD doesn't exist in Civ- its not like in Alpha Centauri, wherein the AIs were actually aware of your possession of Nukes (or "Planet Busters"). Also, the effect of Nukes in Civ4 is rather pitiful compared to their real world counterparts.

I would think that anyone living in a city that gets hit by an ICBM would either die instantly or die shortly thereafter, but noooo....

Look up projected effects of detonations on cities. Nukes don't magically kill everyone within 100 kilometers.

 

[Todd Hawks]

So therefore the game-mechanic should be fixed.

No, I think it's covered with global warming, I don't think there needs to be a "fix". A timed effect would be pointless considering the time frame of the game.

From a game mechanic point of view I'd rather get rid of the penalty for nuking completely. It's not my fault that the AI throws nukes all over the planet, after all, and therefore a little frustrating when the planet turns to a desert without being able to prevent it. On the other hand, the game usually is getting to the end by that time anyway and all players are affected equally, so it's not a problem per se.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Nukes are not some magical device which destroys the planet. 2000 nuclear tests and no noticeable increase in background radiation, nor is there any noticeable fluctuations in climate.

Mostly underground. Indeed LBT prohibits above ground tests in 1963 (although I assume there's been a couple since then). And there was a noticeably increase in background radiation, peaking in that year at 0.15 mSv worldwide. Which isn't huge until you consider how relatively tiny the bombs involved tended to be and that 0.15 mSv made up 7% of total background radiation. In the 18 years since 1945, nuclears tests double the conc. of airborne Carbon-14 in the northern hemisphere. Combined with plausible 'mid-term' effects on the ozone layer, radiation would be significant for survivors of a nuclear war.
See these UNSCEAR reports for more info.

Try moving out of the city some time, you'll be startled by how uninhabited the planet is.

I live in the countryside. It smells awful all year round and the oil seed rape makes it impossible to breath.

Also: there is no where near enough nuclear weapons to end life on this planet. YES, there is enough to destroy all towns above a couple thousand people, but there is not enough to destroy humanity. Only a fool would think so, one who lives in fear of all the magical uncertaintys of the world we live in.

True. But would cause an awful lot of deaths, both in the blasts and afterwards, as well as changing the climate massively.

Nuclear explosions don't cause fires, if anything they would put out fires.

No, you're wrong. The heat involved will cause fires a number of km from the focus of the blast and the winds resulting from the pressure change will not put them out.

You guys need to stop reading these ******** doomsday websites and actually open a book and learn a little bit.

Um...

 

[Thalassicus]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[frob2900]

No, I think it's covered with global warming, I don't think there needs to be a "fix". A timed effect would be pointless considering the time frame of the game.

Ok, fair enough, you have a point (but I still like my idea )

From a game mechanic point of view I'd rather get rid of the penalty for nuking completely. It's not my fault that the AI throws nukes all over the planet, after all, and therefore a little frustrating when the planet turns to a desert without being able to prevent it. On the other hand, the game usually is getting to the end by that time anyway and all players are affected equally, so it's not a problem per se.

The nuclear winter unhealth/starvation mechanic would be a fun way to simulate the damage caused by a nuclear war. Although as it stands now, yes, the tiles-to-desert thing from nukes is annoying.