Real-Life Civilization

[traius]

But actually using those nukes on China is not a possibility. The trade relationship between the US and China is simply too valuable. Nuking China would mean was less gold from trade routes and no excess resource trades for gold, forcing the US to dial back the culture and espionage sliders (already obviously running the science slider at 0%--how long is it taking us to research fusion again?). That means unhappiness and vulnerability to annoying Arab and Persian spies.



It's completely unthinkable in the first place. I doubt geopolitics would be particularly relevant in the aftermath of a full-scale US nuclear first strike on China. Maybe it wouldn't be enough to destroy global civilization.

Well, as I already threw out there, I DON'T think it would spell the end of civilization. Any leader who faces such a reality would realize that America is not to be trifled with. IE have nukes or be destroyed, as America is apparently totally fine with annihilating countries (in this scenario). So if you don't have nukes, you probably don't consider a DoW. If you DO have nukes, you realize that America has more nukes than you could possibly stop, so what does your country gain in that scenario? I think the world would vilify America, and be scared of it, but so scared of their own destruction that America would "get away with it" long term. But I imagine all countries WOULD stop trading with the US, and the US would find itself in the toilet economically.

To refer to CIV: Lots of "you nuked our friends" penalties, followed by requests to "stop trading with our worst enemy" which would be accepted, since the ask-ee in said requests also has America as its worst enemy.

 

[Flipantropo]

I suspect that an all out nuclear war would have no winners. All nuclear warfare stopped dead right after his birth in the end of WWII (as far as I know, but i doubt covering such an aggresion from the media is possible). For me the lack of nuking in all subsequent wars is proof that nobody really desires to see it happen. But of course, the future will be better tomorrow...

 

[FlorbFnarb]

A full scale nuclear war would be devastating for either side. One side could end up being a winner in the sense of losing only a few major cities, I suppose, while avoiding the utter collapse the other side suffered, but it would be devastating nonetheless.

The rest of the world would be just peachy except for the economic troubles that would surely follow, I suppose.

 

[reddishrecue]

Nuclear warfare at this point isnt as obvious as it seems particularly when all the shootings are happening as well as large police killings that have happened throughout our communities. Nukes are used when necessary.

 

[Seraiel]

America should just build SDI, and I think there's still plenty of Bomb Shelters left in many cities from the Cold War, so a few nukes wouldn't do too much damage.

I believe the USA has something like the SDI, I once saw a documentary on a "shield against rockets" that works on multiple levels, like interception by rockets, interception by airplanes and so on.

Regarding the bomb-shelters however, america advised their citizens to "duck and hide" in case of a nuclear strike, so they should i. e. jump under a table, and propaganda made them believe that they were safe then.
So I don't believe even 10% of the americans would have nuclear bomb shelters.

 

[FlorbFnarb]

Almost nobody has bomb shelters. The old "duck and cover" advice was from an era where the danger was from Hiroshima-scale warheads, so the advice was sound at the time; Hiroshima was best to hell but far from eradicated. In the era of 20MT warheads, you'd have to be pretty far away for ducking behind a desk to do you any real good.

I believe the U.S. has ship-mounted ABMs that work on descending warheads; I don't know of anything targeting them while higher in their arc.

 

[traius]

they have the one-of-a-kind (2 of a kind?) graser (gamma-ray-laser) that is mounted in a boeing transport aircraft. It's designed to shoot down missiles before descent, but honestly, it's little more than a pipe dream that it would ever work in an actual military event (the laser does theoretically work, and operates in real life, it's just hard as hell to use), since it's in a non-combat aircraft that moves at less than 1/30th the speed of an ICBM and as far as I remember does not have independent aiming (ie the plane must point at the missile for it to work). Which means it must climb in order to shoot anything (since ICBMs fly at extremely high altitudes), and descend when it approaches max altitude, then start all over again. It takes some time for it to do its job too, and cannot destroy 2 missiles at once unless they were lined up perfectly (as in, lined up by the enemy). It might be able to stop a handful of ICBM's before the holocaust began.

 

[FlorbFnarb]

they have the one-of-a-kind (2 of a kind?) graser (gamma-ray-laser) that is mounted in a boeing transport aircraft. It's designed to shoot down missiles before descent, but honestly, it's little more than a pipe dream that it would ever work in an actual military event (the laser does theoretically work, and operates in real life, it's just hard as hell to use), since it's in a non-combat aircraft that moves at less than 1/30th the speed of an ICBM and as far as I remember does not have independent aiming (ie the plane must point at the missile for it to work). Which means it must climb in order to shoot anything (since ICBMs fly at extremely high altitudes), and descend when it approaches max altitude, then start all over again. It takes some time for it to do its job too, and cannot destroy 2 missiles at once unless they were lined up perfectly (as in, lined up by the enemy). It might be able to stop a handful of ICBM's before the holocaust began.

No, that's something different. Back in the seventies, I think, the USAF had a program where a laser was mounted in a 747 and it managed to burn a hole in a missile. Apparently it went nowhere.

The ship-mounted system uses ABM missiles to destroy an incoming warhead, much like the Patriot system used on land.

 

[Lexicus]

I believe the USA has something like the SDI, I once saw a documentary on a "shield against rockets" that works on multiple levels, like interception by rockets, interception by airplanes and so on.

Nah, that's different. The US navy has the Phalanx system that uses rotary cannons firing ~3,000 rounds a minute (by comparison the German MG42 fired ~1300 rounds per minute). It can stop cruise missiles in theory but an ICBM is a whole different ball game. Practically impossible to stop and the US certainly has experimented but never succeeded in building a working system.

As for the survival of nuclear war, the general strategy (for both the US and the Soviets) was that things would be spread out so that damage could be "absorbed" while command-and-control still functioned and continuity of government was maintained.

I have read a few books (one written by nuclear scientists in the mid-80s) making a mockery of the maintenance of any sort of strategic purpose in the midst of large-scale nuclear war. Even a small exchange between India and Pakistan has the potential to kill billions through famine; had the US and USSR gone all-out civilization would certainly have ended and they might even have achieved human extinction.

Civ IV epic game's representation of the effects of massive nuclear war is...inadequate. IIRC the NextWar mod has a function where if enough nukes are launched everyone loses the game (maybe it's Broken Star? Can't remember).

 

[Pangaea]

Don't think it's a coincidence nobody have used nukes aggressive since the US 70 years ago. Every leader worth his salt knows it means mutual destruction, and nobody are served by that. It's a deterrent, which is probably why the US and Israel are so up in arms about the idea of Iran possibly getting one. Even India and Pakistan haven't launched nukes at each other, and there is plenty of hate to go around there.

Of course you have depleted uranium weapons (which wreaks havoc on the population for decades), and aren't bunker busters kind of nuclear too? Or maybe I mis-remember that one. But I don't think in this day and age a country can launch ICBMs at each other and expect to get away with it. More likely to continue the development that Bush and Obama started (and Israel also use heavily) of drone-wars. No risk to your own soldiers, and you can sit and wage war half-way across the globe. These things will only get more advanced, and include more types of weapons than light aircrafts.

 

[dohh]

Tallinn, a capitol of former barbarian state of Estonia has been conquered by Germans first, then Vikings, then Russians, then Germans again and few more times like that. Then finally got an independence after Russia liberated all barbarian cities at 1991.

I know, I know... WTH... is Estonia, right?

 

[dohh]

Don't think it's a coincidence nobody have used nukes aggressive since the US 70 years ago.

That's not completely true. The French have nuked the ocean, I know that for sure. Quite aggressive against Sushi inc.

 

[civfanchambers]

With barbarians rampaging in its borders Iraq appears to be on the path to peace vassaling to Iran.

 

[reddishrecue]

A train flipped over and crashed. Many people were injured. Sabotage improvement next to a railroad site.

 

[Atlantic Pacf.]

So China is either trying for all of the victory types (except culture). The US was ahead until it dropped the space shuttle; it probably still has a lead in many areas, but it's not capitalizing on them. Russia is, too, but now its science slider is at zero in order to 1. hoard gold and 2. pay for maintenance for troops in Ukraine. It might be going for Diplo with its courting of the African states. Maybe Domination, but territorial claims in its area != attempt at conquering the globe. Ditto for score.

Meanwhile Japan and South Korea are both building culture and spamming Great Artists to get Culture victories. Either that, or Japan is going for a Space victory and S. Korea is using some of its Hit Songs in order win Diplo. As they are doing so, they are trying to keep China's annoying vassal of North Korea at bay.

 

[Krugi]

On May 7, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama cited Psy's "Gangnam Style" as an example of how people around the world are being "swept up by Korean culture -- the Korean Wave."

In turn, I'm going to cite this as an example of how people around the world are feeling increasingly irritated by politicians promoting impulsive consumption as a substitute for engaging with the unknown. Or by their apparent self-parody.

How Civilization differs from life as we otherwise know it:

• A Great Artist being born is nearly always perceived as a huge disappointment
• After a brief period of industrious enthusiasm, cultural victories only consist of the inexorable advance of a clock towards an arbitrary threshold of accumulated wealth, after which the game ends with an anticlimatic epitaph. Immortality is theoretically achievable after that point, but at some point the ennui of self-encapsulated splendour grows unbearable, and the responsible Demiurge leaves that particular universe to fossilize at the End of History
• The population of mega-cities in the Modern Era is sustained by outrageous quantities of cereals and seafood, which are acquired in lopsided treaties that leave the exploited civilizations unable to meet their own domestic demands; resulting health issues are mostly blamed on the presence of floodplains and unchopped jungle
• While the mechanics of slavery and subventions to encourage production are assumed to differ, both will inevitably hinder research in the short term, either by removing the workforce, or by redirecting the funds assigned to said workforce
• Speaking of which, specialization of labour is only encouraged in the hope of producing a small elite whose discoveries, to which they had dedicated their entire lives, are subsequently used as a bargaining chip in foreign trade. Specialists unable to rise to such a level are otherwise seen as "an inefficient use of food", whose employment is solely justified by the payoff provided by the best of their caste
• While the game of Civilization offers a variety of models to represent men, although most of them are consigned to eternal military service, women can only serve either as the unremarkable companion to a travelling man with a quarterstaff, or as a fiery-haired agent provocateur who first robs someone's entire treasury, then proceeds to change their civics every turn. Women born into the elite are functionally indifferent from men and serve their purpose neither worse nor better, making it pointless to distinguish between appearances in that special case and besides, nowhere does it say that Joan of Arc wasn't bearded.
• Absolutely nobody cares about the Temple of Artemis

 

[dohh]

How Civilization differs from life as we otherwise know it:

• A Great Artist being born is nearly always perceived as a huge disappointment

hahaha, hilariousDDD

 

[reddishrecue]

Another train gets flipped over at a different site again. *Spy sabotage improvement.

 

[cooldude1128]

Mayans whip the Chichen Itza and subsequently lose all their population.

Spanish explorers stumble across the Americas, only to find out that those cheating viking bastards used galley cheats to bypass ice.

 

[Lexicus]

Random event: Morons in American Congress commit diplomatic faux pas with Persia. -1 relations hit with Cyrus