another country

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
RE: 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

The world already saw the most powerful nuclear weapon when the USSR detonated the Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton nuclear bomb, affectionately named "Tsar" (King) not because it was a huge bomb, but because it is too large to be of any tactical value, basically a ceremonial bomb to show off power, like the Tsar bell in Moscow (if I remember right, that's where it is), it is too large to ring, so it just sits on a pedistal.

The Tsar Bomba is actually a scaled down version of the Tsar Bomb (no a), which is a 100 megaton bomb.

However nuclear weapons won't get more powerful, nobody really needs that, instead they will get more *accurate*. Instead of simply relying on a large blast to destroy things, a smaller, more accurate missile can wipe out the target at less risk than the large bomb. The goal is to knock out the enemy's weapon facilities rather than damage large areas.

There are VERY few nuclear weapons above the 100kt mark despite the ability to create larger weapons. Most are 20kts.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Destruction of the Earth

>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.

However I am talking about *bombs* not cruise missiles, and I am also talking about "dumb" bombs that are dropped onto their targets, not like the "smart" bombs we have now.

>Also stealth doesn't mack it
>immune a stealth got shot
>down in the Kosovo crisis
>and intercepters have visual ways
>of locating aircraft.

Of course they aren't immune, but the fact is that they have a lot better chance of not getting hit, especially during night-raids, than other bombers. The truth is that nuclear bombs are hardly used at all now. Instead MIRV ICBMs with as many as 15 nuclear warheads are the weapons of choice when leveling a nation. Cruise missiles are better at hard to reach targets, or targets that aren't worth using an ICBM for.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>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`s a litterary image,to show the epical proportions of the destruction,nothing more.
it has a biblical resonance,an ancient storytellers tone, and an ambiance linked with plato´s writings about atlantis and catholic´s mystics visions about the end of the world.uff...
it would be a shame to loose some landscapes from
Bulgaria, east Gearmany and Russia in f3( or the abandoned uranium mine a few miles from my house here in Portugal:( )
sorry about the english, i`m quite rusty now
 
>Would'nt enough nuclear bomb detinated couse
>a nuclear winter?

The "nuclear winter" theory is largely discreditted. Created in the early 1980's it was merely used either as propaganda by the Soviets to scare people, or as a way for nuclear-disarmnament activists to make the claim that nuclear wars cannot be lived through and the only way to survive is to remove all nukes from the world.

It doesn't exist. Only a cataclysmic event could stir up enough particles to cause any kind of real cooling. Something on the order of a comet or an asteriod hitting the Earth. They have the power equivilent to something like 1,000,000 times the power of all the nuclear weapons on earth.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
in the second game of the series (fountain of dreams) if you remeber florida was cut-off the mainland USA by the nukes
 
Wait a sec (talk of tech, etc.) + Fallout Taiwan

The fact that Fallout takes an alternate view of human history indicates that Fallout tech could deviate from our tech timeline. I mean their computers used vacuum tubes and punch cards to function, and their automobiles had no electronics.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to set a Fallout (not necessarily the next one) in Taiwan. I mean Taiwan as a nation, others consider it part of China, has a fifty year enmity against mainland China. It would be really cool to see what occurs in 2077 between the two. I bet U.S. could use Taiwan as a staging point for amphibious landing of troops ( Of course they could also enter through Russia, Southern Korea, Singapore, etc.)
 
RE: Wait a sec (talk of tech, etc.) + Fallout Taiwan

Weel i was born in 1983 so i dont think i`ll live until 2077 but i am quite sure that the folowing 76.5 years wont be peaceful (enough)

Wyco The Hun.
Wyco@maffia.hu
Porn To Be wild & (F)Oszd meg es Uralkodj !!
 
Back
Top