"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!"

[mossmonster]

Is there an early game version of the thread title's threat, maybe something like:

"Our words are backed by long pointed sticks!"

 

[gunburned]

Mehh call me lucky cause ive never been hit with a nuke... by a computer controlled nation. My military adivsor usualy tells me "You the one with the Nukes! "

 

[Oni]

Since it's given that info on the Manhattan Project would leak, maybe it should gift the civilization that builds it a free nuke, and then the other civs have to wait 5 turns or something before they could start building nukes.

Nice discussion
This is exactly what I was thinking about the Manhatten Project.. Or something similar.

I skimmed over the later part of the discussion so I may be repeating somethings but here goes.

There should be more than one type of Nuke but I can live with one...

Nuke usage-
This should not automatically create negative penalty. It should be proportional to the other civs relations. e.g. Civ A is warring with Civ B and Civ C. Civ B nukes Civ A. Civ C should not get upset (maybe actually more happy ).
Keep in mind when the US nuked Japan the retro-effects in diplomacy of using nukes did not come for years later... I never liked it in CivIII when I finally built my nukes and nuked my eternal enemy to win the war and the rest of the world declared war on me and began launching. It just doesn't make sence. However, if it were the case that Civ A launched on Civ B then surely Civ C would launch if they had 'em.

Make Nukes Deterents -
Not sure how this could be done but it would sure make for some nice Cold Wars.
Possibilities- Certain Civics gain happiness or Sadness depending on Ratio of Nukes you have to other civs.


T.M.P-
I like it as a World Project but having it a National would solve alot of the problems. Or as I quoted above just give them a free nuke or 2 (2 came out of the real M.P.)
Another possibility is crank the research required to obtain access for it. This would make sence because the U.S. sold the technology to the U.K. after the war (they never had a M.P. but the Russians did if my history is correct).
If this is done there should still be a National Project but then it would nto require that much work (the Tech would be the biggest acheivment and it should require alot of research)

Well thats all I can think of right now, but my biggest thing is I would like to see Nuke's going more towards a deterent device versus a "end the game" device...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well thats all I can think of right now, but my biggest thing is I would like to see Nuke's going more towards a deterent device versus a "end the game" device...

And the best way to make then a Deterent device is to have them become an 'End the Game device'. Deterence is because of Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[lucky donkey]

Nukes.....Sweet....Excellent.... (heh what else can you possibly say?)

 

[Abegweit]

although the radiation effects everybody for quite a long distance, and the areas nuked are uninhabitable for quite a while.

I have seen this kind of post on this thread several times. It is simply wrong. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki picked up and went on with their lives, just as did those at Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg and other cities hit by conventional firebombing raids. Rebuilding started immediately in all these places. There is little evidence of any effect, other than that of the explosion itself and its immediate aftermath.

Nuclear fallout. Now, as far as I'm aware this cannot be simply "cleaned up", even with modern day technology.

True. But since there is nothing to do be "cleaned up", it's hardly an issue, is it?

The area Chernobyl, for exampe, is still extremely dangerous

False. Just because government nannies force people to leave their homes, this does not mean there is any danger. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that low levels of radioactivity have any adverse effect at all. They "proved" it through the same kind of pseudo-science that demonstrated that aspartame is dangerous. If a given dose causes x damage, a dose 1/50,000th of that will cause 1/50,000th of damage. To take a concrete example of this logic. If a dose of 500 REMS of radiation will kill one person, it follows that a 50,000 people are exposed to a dose of 1 milliREM, it means that one of them will die.

There is some tantalising evidence that exposure to low levels of radioactivity is actually beneficial. Consider this, for example. 97% lower cancer rates among people exposed to up to 1.5 REMS per year.

(although for some reason the roads are pretty safe, the ground it rather nasty - there is an interesting thing somewhere on the internet about a lady who tours the area regularely on her motorbike - google it ).

This is a fake.

 

[WildWeazel]

So you're claiming that nuclear fallout is a hoax, and that the radiation isn't even dangerous.... ?

 

[Abegweit]

There seems to a lot of confusion over nuclear winters and what they are. Let me try to shed a little light, or rather darkness, on the subject.

A nuclear winter is, in theory, caused by huge amounts of particulate matter being thrown up into the atmosphere. This prevents solar radiation radiation from reaching the ground and has two main effects: reduced photosynthesis and reduced temperatures.

There are natural examples of this. For example, the volcanic explosion at Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 threw 10 cubic kilometers of material into the atmosphere and caused a measurable drop in global temperature of about .5deg C.

The mainstream theory is that that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a similar effect when a several enormous meteors (probably parts of the same object) hit the earth simultaneously. The largest, the Shiva impact off the coast of India, likely drove right down into the earth's mantle and ripped open a massive volcanic dome thousands of square miles in size (this is called the Decca Traps). The sun was totally obsured for years, perhaps centuries.

A similar event probably took place at the Permian - Transition 248 million years ago. There are volcanic traps in Siberia and what appears to be an impact crater off Australia from that period.

As to whether such an event could be caused by atomic bombs, I strongly doubt it. Pinatubo was 500 times as powerful as a hydrogen bomb and had a negligible effect. This despite the fact that the direction of the explosion was out of the ground and up into the atmosphere. In contrast, atomic bombs are normally airbursts and thus cause little particulate matter to be thrown into the air, even after considering the effects of fires.

While the US and Russia have enough power in their arsenals to turn every major city in the world into rubble and thus kill billions of people, logic suggests that this would have a minimal effect on global climate.

 

[Abegweit]

So you're claiming that nuclear fallout is a hoax, and that the radiation isn't even dangerous....

Oh, nuclear fallout is real; it's the dangers that are the hoax. There seems to be a law among modern scare-mongers in the bureaucracy and media: if you can measure it, it must be dangerous. This, of course, is because their jobs depend on creating scares. If they didn't have scares to worry us about, they would be out on their butts. This law applies to far more things than nuclear fallout.

Anyway, the notion that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were uninhabitable is simply false. People lived there all along and there is no evidence that anyone not exposed to the blast itself was in any heightened danger. Similarly, there is no danger in fallout from Chernobyl.

 

[Mondo_]

Still upset there is only ONE nuclear unit...so much for strategy

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So you're claiming that nuclear fallout is a hoax, and that the radiation isn't even dangerous.... ?

Nuclear fallout is mostly produced on a global scale (stuff thrown into the high atmosphere). If a ground burst was done then more would concentrate in the region. Even still the fact that the radioisotopes decay would 'clean up' a lot of it within a year (the rest would be there for a long time).

Nuclear fallout would be a better global side effect than climate change, since that could have global effects. Part of the reason above ground tests were banned, if there was enough of them they would start having an adverse effect on health (although you would have to reach into the high thousands of tests first).

The fact is nuclear weapons should do more to destroy the city they are aimed at and less to destroy the environment (especially with ICBM/H bombs...the radiation is minimal, anyone that would get significant radiation sickness would probably vaporize first.)

 

[MadVideo13]

While the US and Russia have enough power in their arsenals to turn every major city in the world into rubble and thus kill billions of people, logic suggests that this would have a minimal effect on global climate.

Then tell me why they put a ban on nuclear testing? If it's so harmless to the global environment, you would think they would drop those suckers just because we want to see how stronger they get.

Just a thought

 

[Khaim]

Then tell me why they put a ban on nuclear testing? If it's so harmless to the global environment, you would think they would drop those suckers just because we want to see how stronger they get.

It's harmless to the environment as a whole, yes. But drifting radiation can still cause problems, like killing a few people or making some babies come out deformed. The effect of a single explosion might be minimal, but the combined effect of hundreds of tests would start to have a measurable effect on human health.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Nuclear testing was not banned because of the global climate effect (any global climate effect would require thousands to hundreds of thousands of nukes going off At Once... not something any test ever did) The only reason would have been global fallout, which if aboveground testing continued at a high pace would probably have lead to slightly increased cancer rates worldwide. (not something devastating for society, but a bad thing and worth avoiding)

 

[Abegweit]

Then tell me why they put a ban on nuclear testing? If it's so harmless to the global environment, you would think they would drop those suckers just because we want to see how stronger they get.

Just a thought

Umm... maybe they don't like the notion of the suckers being dropped on Washington DC? If someone drops a piano on my head, it won't affect the global environment. However, it might affect mine. I would definitely be against the idea. People in Sri Lanka might not have such strong opinions.

 

[Doomscout]

I order my nuke to blow someone's city then suddenly everyone nuke me after blow that city! AAAARRGGH!!
PWN!

 

[Stalin5]

You would think that by the 4rth version they would have a difference between a-bombs and h-bombs, or at least have double power when you research fusion.

 

[Stalin5]

And I also think that you should be able to build and use nukes under the no-nukes treaty, but u would be at war with all nations who signed it and the one u nuked.

 

[Ubiquitous]

Just to clear up this matter ... I nuked an enemy city when under the no-nukes treaty. I can't even remember the AI declaring war on me for it although I was very friendly with the remaining AI nations.

 

[Stalin5]

Hmmm...........interesting.