Realistic Nuclear Missile Mods?

[PowderedWig]

It was claimed that there was an ICBM that had 35 megatons of explosive power by the US,
A 35 megaton ICBM would wipe out any city of any size, Like I said in an earlier post, if the Hiroshima bomb had a one mile blast radius than imagine the blast radius of a 10 megaton ICBM.
Even a one megaton ICBM would have a blast radius of 500 miles. I am guessing the average ICBM has 10 megatons of explosive power. Where I found out about the 35 megaton ICBM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Any claims made about the destructive ability of nuclear bombs are purely hypothetical. In order to actually know what kind of devastation "a city the size of Dallas" would endure would require a simulation or actual event. Since most of these guesses are based loosely on Wikipedia data or the imaginings of such situations based on randomly gathered general information, let's try to reduce the amount of under-informed postings.

Unless, by some measure, you guys are stockpile stewards, or nuclear weapons engineers. In that case, excuse my presuppositions that you are not.

Modern cities are much more spread out.

A 50MT thermonuclear warhead dropped on Manhattan would probably wipe out a good deal of NYC and a good deal of metro-New Jersey as NYC is pretty well compressed. Now LA and Dallas are different stories altogether.

Even a one megaton ICBM would have a blast radius of 500 miles.

Again, unless you somehow can prove this, please do not post uninformed comments like this. There is video of tests done on 30+MT bombs at the atolls in the Pacific. Were these videos shot from 5000 miles away?

 

[Badtz Maru]

I found a blast radius calculator here that shows you the different radii for various levels of damage:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?inpyield=300

The most powerful nuclear weapon in active service by the USA is 1.2MT (1200 KT). This bomb is too large to use as a warhead on an ICBM. ICBM warheads are generally around 300KT, but some missiles carry up to 10 of them. These could cause some damage up to about 8 miles away, but that would be mostly just broken windows. For severe damage to most houses, you'd have to be within 3-4 miles of ground zero.

Nuclear weapons as depicted in CivIV are actually overpowered if they are supposed to represent single ICBM warheads. I wouldn't mind them adding more powerful bombs, that required you to fly a bomber over the city, with significant interception risks.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

If you want to think realistically, realize that the most realistic estimates are probably confidential.

 

[Badtz Maru]

It was claimed that there was an ICBM that had 35 megatons of explosive power by the US,
A 35 megaton ICBM would wipe out any city of any size, Like I said in an earlier post, if the Hiroshima bomb had a one mile blast radius than imagine the blast radius of a 10 megaton ICBM.
Even a one megaton ICBM would have a blast radius of 500 miles. I am guessing the average ICBM has 10 megatons of explosive power. Where I found out about the 35 megaton ICBM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

The most powerful US warhead was 9MT, and it is no longer in use. The military has moved away from super-sized bombs that are hard to deliver and towards multiple smaller warheads that can be delivered more precisely. A 10 warhead MIRV with 300KT warheads can totally take out a cities industrial capacity and infrastructure without necessarily killing every single person in the city.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you say a 1 MT ICBM would have a blast radius of 500 miles, or that there were 35MT warheads on missiles. The largest nuclear device ever was 50MT (and in theory could have been up to 100MT) and it weighed over 50,000 lbs. It would only cause total destruction within a circle about 20 miles across, and no blast effects more than 50 miles off (though it could break windows 45 miles away or so, which is impressive).

 

[Badtz Maru]

A 50MT thermonuclear warhead dropped on Manhattan would probably wipe out a good deal of NYC and a good deal of metro-New Jersey as NYC is pretty well compressed. Now LA and Dallas are different stories altogether.

Most of the official estimates of the destructive damage of bombs are probably adjusted upwards, not downwards - we want our bombs to sound scarier than they are.

And, as far as I know, nobody is using any 50MT bombs. As I said before, most warheads are in the .3 to .5 MT range, which will break windows 4 or 5 miles away, but will only wipe out a circle with a radius of about 2 miles.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Definitely. As I was saying, I don't know why people are making assumptions about the destructive ability of weapons whose specifications are quite classified. Again, nuclear weapons engineer? Stockpile steward? No? Probably shouldn't venture into those areas then.

BTW wasn't commenting on a 50MT bomb. A 5MT bomb a 30MT bomb. Those were the ones I mentioned (and not in a practical sense, really).

Assuming that the estimates are larger than real yields is just that... an assumption. no offense, but this stuff is classified, so how can we know?

 

[PowderedWig]

That is why I said the US claimed they had a warhead of that caliber never say they did have one but you are right when you say that most super powered nukes are decommissioned.

"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you say a 1 MT ICBM would have a blast radius of 500 miles" My bad, mathematical error, a large on at that, sorry math isn't my strong point.
I guess I meant that since the Hiroshima bomb had 1 mile destruction radius and was 20 kilotons of power I would guess a 1 megaton bomb would have 50 times the destructive power. Meaning 50 miles of destruction -and the modern day building materials would lower it so that it is about say 25 miles of destruction, but again this is just assumption but there is nothing wrong with assumptions and educated guesses.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

but again this is just assumption but there is nothing wrong with assumptions and educated guesses.

Except it's not all that educated.

 

[PowderedWig]

It is, its educated because I took that base of the information and analysis from something that actually happened.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It is, its educated because I took that base of the information and analysis from something that actually happened.

By your own admission, it happened 64 years ago with completely outdated technology. And the only information available to you is the radius, death count, and your suppositions about the construction materials of 2 medium sized cities. I'm sorry, but this is not informed or educated. I'm done with this thread. It's gotten silly.

 

[PowderedWig]

"By your own admission, it happened 64 years ago with completely outdated technology." Which means that todays nukes have only gotten more advanced and more capable, and considering that even the atom bomb on Hiroshima was able to destroy reinforced concrete buildings it fairly safe to assume that a 1 megaton nuke could destroy at least 25 miles of a city."I'm sorry, but this is not informed or educated. I'm done with this thread. It's gotten silly. " Say what you wish to please yourself, you only make yourself look more snoty, stuck up and whiney.

 

[pesgores]

Guys, guys, calm down. ALL he was asking was for a MOD that could provide the game with more powerful nukes.

Now, stealing this thread again, may someone indicate a link or something containing the features mentioned in the paragraph above?

 

[PowderedWig]

I was pretty sure this community was a well mannered, cordial one but recent posts prove that some people can't have a gentleman's debate without being hostile or rude which just proves how primitive and ill-mannered they are.

 

[xchen08]

So a few points:

1) A single modern nuke will not entirely destroy most modern cities. A modern ICBM (say Minuteman III) with 3 MIRVs also wouldn't be able to destroy most modern cities other than relatively small and compact ones on the East Coast or in Europe.

2) It is rather silly that repeated nukings can't destroy a city. However, this is a purely aesthetic issue, since a city after repeated nukings is basically destroyed anyway.

3) On the basis of realism, it's the cost of the missiles that is unrealistic, not their destructive potential. The Minuteman III missile costs about $7 million each. Compare this to the $4.35 million per unit cost of the M1A2 tank. Compare with Civ costs of 500 vs. 240. We know each tank unit represents an undefined but at least company level formation of tanks, while each ICBM unit represents a single missile. This would make the cost of the ICBM too high by at least an order of magnitude.

4) However, it is clear that this is an instance where game balance takes precedent over realism. Imagine what would happen in a game with 50 ICBMs.

 

[PowderedWig]

Well I'm pretty sure that each individual MIRV missile has one megaton worth of explosive power and I am pretty sure they have about six warheads inside. Although this forum marks the first time I heard of MIRVs, so that's about six megatons of explosive power spread out through the target city, it sounds to me like that city would be wiped out by that one missile or at least destroy three quarters of it.

 

[xchen08]

Well I'm pretty sure that each individual MIRV missile has one megaton worth of explosive power and I am pretty sure they have about six warheads inside. Although this forum marks the first time I heard of MIRVs, so that's about six megatons of explosive power spread out through the target city, it sounds to me like that city would be wiped out by that one missile or at least destroy three quarters of it.

You are forgetting that the Civ IV tile is a lot bigger than any actual cities. But ignoring that, the ICBM unit is pretty clearly representing the Minuteman Missile, the most modern of which, the Minuteman III, the only current U.S. ICBM, carries 3 MIRVs. The Trident II SLBM, the only other U.S. strategic missile carries 8, but due to Treaty restrictions, carry no more than 4. Notice that most actual missiles don't carry either their design or treaty limit of warheads for cost and arms control reasons. Most Minuteman IIIs for example, only carry a single warhead.

Warheads of 1 Megaton or higher are pretty much just test weapons. No one uses warheads that powerful in actual weapons. U.S. Strategic warheads range from 100 kt to 475 kt. No nuclear missile ever made, even with a full complement of warheads (say Peacekeeper missile with 12 MIRVs) can entirely destroy an entire Civ tile, but as I mentioned, realism wise, it's the cost of nukes rather than destruction that is off.

 

[PowderedWig]

Hmm..

 

[PowderedWig]

Then I suppose I should change the thread to say, add hydrogen bombs to Civ 4 BTS, as I recall one being 50 megatons in strength.

 

[xchen08]

Then I suppose I should change the thread to say, add hydrogen bombs to Civ 4 BTS, as i recall one being 50 megatons in strength.

All current strategic nuclear weapons are hydrogen bombs. The American W88 for example, has multiple fission and fusion stages that allow the user to "dial" its yield from the 475 kt max down to just 20 kt. The 50 MT hydrogen bomb you are talking about also weighed 27 tons, and was so large that the bomber carrying it had to have its bomb bay doors and fuel tanks removed. That's just not useful as a weapon at all.