another country

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
for all those people who would like to see fallout 3 in a different country like france or england. Well if you watched the opening movies you will hear the guy say,"continents were swallowed in flames and sanke beneth the boiling ocean". Now what does that tell you?
 
it tells me

It tells me that some nukes hit in the water sending tremendous tsunamis over the lands.
 
RE: it tells me

EXACTLY!!!! That would probubly kill everyone and destroy all the citys.
 
RE: it tells me

i dont think so.eg: Budapest (Hungary),or Moscow is far in the middle of the continent to survive this kind of bit "floods"

Wyco
 
RE: it tells me

I didn't mean that all other countrys were under water. I just ment it in general like England and all the costs my be flooded in some areas.
 
RE: it tells me

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-01-00 AT 06:26AM (GMT)[p]>I didn't mean that all other
>countrys were under water. I
>just ment it in general
>like England and all the
>costs my be flooded in
>some areas.

That would only occur if the nukes create a large crater and water rushed in. Nuclear Fallout doesn't cause global warming, if anything the Earth would cool for a short period.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Wrong. The truth on nukes and tsunamis..

>It tells me that some nukes
>hit in the water sending
>tremendous tsunamis over the lands.

Average Nuclear blasts do not have the power to produce tsunamis. This was proven by the atmospheric tests done in the Pacific Ocean by the USA during the 1950s and 1960s.

Yes, a larger than natural wave occurs, but it is hardly a tsunami and is confined only to surface water which does not produce much damage.

Tsunamis only occur at the very depths of the ocean. They form when a continental shelf slides or any other extremely powerful force occurs beneath the surface of the water. Water is pushed upwards throughout the full column of water above the energy source. People above on the surface of the water, if it is deep, will hardly notice this wave, if at all. It is when the wave starts to approach land and *breaks* against the shallow shore does the tsunami show itself.

A nuclear charge would need to be situated at the bottom of the ocean in order to cause any real tsunami, and the charge would need to be an extremely high-yield device, on the order of a few megatons.

Visit http://www.imsa.edu/edu/geophysics/geosphere/tectonics/eqenergy.html to see how much energy is needed for certain size earthquakes.

And this is only the equivilent amount of energy, nuclear blasts are not the same as continental shifts, they simply create a large explosion which does not transfer all energy to the water in the form of kinetic energy. Instead, much of the energy goes into heat which vaporizes the water rather than moves it.

Furthermore, why would anyone waste their nukes doing that? You could simply blow up the cities themselves.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Wrong. The truth on nukes and tsunamis..

You people went completly of the subject. All I ment was that in the opaning movies the guy seid that "CONTINENTS WERE SWALLOWED IN FLAMES AND SANK BEANETH THE BOILING OCEAN," It was stated in the game. Thats all.

And what is this PAS thing hear for.
 
RE: Wrong. The truth on nukes and tsunamis..

>You people went completly of the
>subject. All I ment was
>that in the opaning movies
>the guy seid that "CONTINENTS
>WERE SWALLOWED IN FLAMES AND
>SANK BEANETH THE BOILING OCEAN,"
>It was stated in the
>game. Thats all.

Yeah, well we took that topic and expanded it, what the problem?

>And what is this PAS thing
>hear for.

"HERE for" you mean? It is part of my signature.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
But what about Fallout 1 & 2 ?!

you forgot that F2`s "scene" is very near to the ocean! ehat about that?it is desert!and that cannot happen that the ocean "floods" and a desert stays there.and what about the cities?

Wyco The Hun.
 
Better nukes

As i can recall the war tock plase in year 2177 or somthing like that.
Dont you think that they would create nuclear tec far superior the one they have today?
 
RE: Better nukes

i dunno, it is true but if we say that the contincents were under water than i say: NO Vaults survived the bombongs `cause they were so BIG bombs (dont forget that the story says the vults were built about 1950-70

Wyco The Hun.
 
RE: Better nukes

>As i can recall the war
>tock plase in year 2177
>or somthing like that.
>Dont you think that they would
>create nuclear tec far superior
>the one they have today?

Actually most nuclear arms are not megaton sized nuclear weapons, most are tactical 20-50kt warheads.

There really isn't any tactical advantage in using bigger bombs, but rather a lot of smaller warheads do better because they can hit multiple targets. Many of the modern ICBMs cluster nukes instead of one large warhead. I've heard some have as many as 15 warheads in each ICBM.

When the intro movie said "continents sunk under boiling waters" or something to that effect, it was probably just for atmosphere and to make it sound almost like a legend or tale of an ancient time.

I don't think you could sink even Hawaii with every nuclear weapon on Earth.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Better nukes

>i dunno, it is true but
>if we say that the
>contincents were under water than
>i say: NO Vaults survived
>the bombongs `cause they were
>so BIG bombs (dont forget
>that the story says the
>vults were built about 1950-70
>
>
>Wyco The Hun.

Uhh the vaults were probably buildt in the 2170s not the 1970s. They just did the game with a 50s style because then everyone was afraid of a nuclear war then and then it would have a cooler atmosphere about the game.
-Kilroy was here-
 
Destruction of the Earth

I read somewhere that if all of the nuclear warheads were detonated, it would be powerful enough to completely destroy the Earth thirteen times over.

I don't know if this was some "be good to our planet" children's article, as I don't remember. Just something I read.
 
RE: Destruction of the Earth

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-00 AT 00:41AM (GMT)[p]>I read somewhere that if all
>of the nuclear warheads were
>detonated, it would be powerful
>enough to completely destroy the
>Earth thirteen times over.
>
>I don't know if this was
>some "be good to our
>planet" children's article, as I
>don't remember. Just something I
>read.

That is over-exaggeration. The actual claim is that the USA and USSR could, at their prime (about 1960), kill off all human life 13 times over. This is what is known as "overkill."

Of course this is to assume that everyone in the world collected into open areas as crowded as the center of a large urban city and a 20 kt nuclear bomb was detonated in the center of them. That's not likely to happen.

Also, a large part of the nuclear arsenals were/are nuclear *bombs* and not ICBMs. These would need to be dropped on targets instead of simply fired. The only aircraft that would have little-enough danger of dropping such bombs without being gunned down by interceptors or SAM sites, are Stealth Bombers. To my knowledge no other country other than the USA has such capabilities.

Not even the comet that hit the world during prehistoric times, killing the dinosaurs, had enough destructive power to even put a substantial dent into the Earth. The blast from that comet was equivilent to something like a billion times the power of all the world's nuclear weapons put together.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Total war

The only problem that people realizied during the cold war that "if a bomb explodes near the enemy installations then that installation will be destroyed" and this is true because technology is much better in 2070 (& warheads r more powerful) than now

Wyco The Hun.
Wyco@maffia.hu
 
RE: Destruction of the Earth

>[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-00
>AT 00:41 AM (GMT)
>
>>I read somewhere that if all
>>of the nuclear warheads were
>>detonated, it would be powerful
>>enough to completely destroy the
>>Earth thirteen times over.
>>
>>I don't know if this was
>>some "be good to our
>>planet" children's article, as I
>>don't remember. Just something I
>>read.
>
>That is over-exaggeration. The actual
>claim is that the USA
>and USSR could, at their
>prime (about 1960), kill off
>all human life 13 times
>over. This is what
>is known as "overkill."
>
>Of course this is to assume
>that everyone in the world
>collected into open areas as
>crowded as the center of
>a large urban city and
>a 20 kt nuclear bomb
>was detonated in the center
>of them. That's not
>likely to happen.
>
>Also, a large part of the
>nuclear arsenals were/are nuclear *bombs*
>and not ICBMs. These
>would need to be dropped
>on targets instead of simply
>fired. The only aircraft
>that would have little-enough danger
>of dropping such bombs without
>being gunned down by interceptors
>or SAM sites, are Stealth
>Bombers. To my knowledge
>no other country other than
>the USA has such capabilities.
>
>
>Not even the comet that hit
>the world during prehistoric times,
>killing the dinosaurs, had enough
>destructive power to even put
>a substantial dent into the
>Earth. The blast from
>that comet was equivilent to
>something like a billion times
>the power of all the
>world's nuclear weapons put together.
>
>
>-Xotor-
>
>[div align=center]

>http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
>[/div]



Well Xotor you don't need a ICBM to get a nuke some where you could use cruise missles, also a fast bomber like the Tu-160 'Blackjack' can penetrate defences by flying high and fast(it has a top speed of 2,000kmh, faster that any american bomber) also it uses sophisticated ECM(electronic counter measures)which makes missles not be able to lock on and once fired miss hopefully. It can also use low level transonic penetration. with cruise missles(russian) they can be fired from an old bomber such as a 'Bear','Badger' or modern bomer like a'blackjack','Backfier','Blinder','Sotka' from international airspace, so by the time an intercepter gets there the bomber has retreated out of the short range of the intercepter. Also stealth doesn't mack it immune a stealth got shot down in the Kosovo crisis and intercepters have visual ways of locating aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top