Mini Nuke in FO3

[Salkinius]

I don't think the mini nuke fit at all, but I can't really substanciate why I feel that way.

Just saying that it wasn't in the original games isn't a valid point I believe. The belief and future prospect of nuclear weapons in the 50's should allow the mini-nuke in the fallout games.

Why didn't the original developers include it (and don't just say because they were smarter, better, and more original than the Bethesda folks).

Couldn't there be some sort of technical restrictions that didn't allow a fairly believable mini nuke in the original games?

 

[Brother None]

Portable nuclear arms used in this context don't fit Fallout's setting. They arguably fit Starship Troopers' "war in space" setting, and they definitely fit the campy FPS setting of Duke Nukem. Fallout? Not so much.

Also, Fallout always took nuclear weapons very seriously. This is campy. Ergo, not good.

 

[SuAside]

this has been discussed quite a lot in the news comments.

a nuclear bazooka would be somewhat fallout-ish in my opinion, but only if it has long range in both destruction radius and range. afterall, there was nuclear artillery and a nuclear recoilless rifle.

however:
- a catapult? what? why not starwars crossbows?
- short range? what would be the use to lob a nuclear device a short way to the enemy. it would mean the device has to be weak to survive.
- small destructive radius? simply means you're better off using a plasma warhead instead of a nuke... it would give the same destruction in the FO universe, yet wouldn't freaking radiate everything...

 

[Salkinius]

Portable nuclear arms used in this context don't fit Fallout's setting. They arguably fit Starship Troopers' "war in space" setting, and they definitely fit the campy FPS setting of Duke Nukem. Fallout? Not so much.

Also, Fallout always took nuclear weapons very seriously. This is campy. Ergo, not good.

What context? A world in a apocalyptic state after a nuclear holocaust seen with the eyes of a sci-fi writer from the 50's? I would say that it pretty much fit.

How did they take nuclear weapons seriously? Not adding a weapon isn't the same as taking something seriously.

 

[Brother None]

What context? A world in a apocalyptic state after a nuclear holocaust seen with the eyes of a sci-fi writer from the 50's? I would say that it pretty much fit.

Really? Give me an example of a 30s-50s author that used the theme of short-ranged nuclear weaponry in his stories. Better yet, show me any work in which they treat nuclear explosions lightly in 40s or 50s non-pulp SciFi.

How did they take nuclear weapons seriously? Not adding a weapon isn't the same as taking something seriously.

There is one nuclear bomb in both Fallouts. In Fallout 1 it is in the Cathedral, in Fallout 2 it is on the oil rig. In both cases it is used to completely annihilate the location and thus end the threat to humanity. Which fits Fallout's dark irony; the nuclear bombs that once ended humanity's reign are now used to save it. That's the set, appropriate, darkly ironic use of nuclear weaponry.

 

[Salkinius]

What context? A world in a apocalyptic state after a nuclear holocaust seen with the eyes of a sci-fi writer from the 50's? I would say that it pretty much fit.

Really? Give me an example of a 30s-50s author that used the theme of short-ranged nuclear weaponry in his stories. Better yet, show me any work in which they treat nuclear explosions lightly in 40s or 50s non-pulp SciFi.

How did they take nuclear weapons seriously? Not adding a weapon isn't the same as taking something seriously.

There is one nuclear bomb in both Fallouts. In Fallout 1 it is in the Cathedral, in Fallout 2 it is on the oil rig. In both cases it is used to completely annihilate the location and thus end the threat to humanity. Which fits Fallout's dark irony; the nuclear bombs that once ended humanity's reign are now used to save it. That's the set, appropriate, darkly ironic use of nuclear weaponry.

1. Sorry, I can't. I'm not that well read into the sci-fi of that time, only movies. But I can't still think of an example. I just thought it would be plausible that a sci-fi writer of that time would believe that humanity one day could control nuclear power to the point of using it as infantry weapons.

2. Granted. Good argument there. But I still can't see why the respect of a huge nuclear bomb would exlude adding much, much smaller nuclear weaponry with a far less effect.

 

[Brother None]

1. Sorry, I can't. I'm not that well read into the sci-fi of that time, only movies. But I can't still think of an example. I just thought it would be plausible that a sci-fi writer of that time would believe that humanity one day could control nuclear power to the point of using it as infantry weapons.

Oh, they did, but only in context. Like Starship Troopers has heavily armored stormtroopers destroying bugs on a foreign planet. It'd be a hard-sell that the powered armored US troops would use nuclear weaponry on their own soil (Alaska), tho'

2. Granted. Good argument there. But I still can't see why the respect of a huge nuclear bomb would exlude adding much, much smaller nuclear weaponry with a far less effect.

Because of what SuAside says. If radiation is such a big deal, what'd be the point of using a low-radius nuclear device with less than a ton burst? The point of nuclear weaponry is the high yield, if you're going for lower destruction, use bazookas or plasma grenades.

 

[10mmCurator]

Nuclear katapults are overkill just use a HE 70MM grenade or bazookas.

 

[Sorrow]

1. The radiation:
As wikipedia says about the Dave Crockett:

Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. Even at a low yield setting, the M388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 meters).

2. Energy weapons in Fallout aren't exactly the same energy weapons that were used in 50s fiction. In 50s various variations Atomic Rayguns that shot atomic fire were very popular.
Fallout has Plasma and Laser weapons instead.
Similarly, the ultimate grenade in Fallout is the Plasma Grenade, not an atomic grenade.

 

[Salkinius]

1. Sorry, I can't. I'm not that well read into the sci-fi of that time, only movies. But I can't still think of an example. I just thought it would be plausible that a sci-fi writer of that time would believe that humanity one day could control nuclear power to the point of using it as infantry weapons.

Oh, they did, but only in context. Like Starship Troopers has heavily armored stormtroopers destroying bugs on a foreign planet. It'd be a hard-sell that the powered armored US troops would use nuclear weaponry on their own soil (Alaska), tho'

2. Granted. Good argument there. But I still can't see why the respect of a huge nuclear bomb would exlude adding much, much smaller nuclear weaponry with a far less effect.

Because of what SuAside says. If radiation is such a big deal, what'd be the point of using a low-radius nuclear device with less than a ton burst? The point of nuclear weaponry is the high yield, if you're going for lower destruction, use bazookas or plasma grenades.

I don't find it so hard to sell. Hell, just look at that funny intro vid from the first game where a US soldier shoots a civ (from the looks of it) in the back of the head and then waves to the camera. Granted that the civ most probably isn't a US citizen and they aren't on US soil, but never the less, we know the effect the Vietnam war, with all it's atrocities, had on the population in US.

But I agree that it isn't realistic using a nuclear weapon when traditional weapon would have the same effect with less side effect. Well, if the side effects isn't something you disire as well.

You could perhaps use the radiation after using the nuclear catapult in a defence purpose, much like using mines.

 

[Brother None]

You could perhaps use the radiation after using the nuclear catapult in a defence purpose, much like using mines.

Mutants are immune to radiation. As such, its specific in-game purpose (killing the Behemoth), makes no sense.

 

[Salkinius]

You could perhaps use the radiation after using the nuclear catapult in a defence purpose, much like using mines.

Mutants are immune to radiation. As such, its specific in-game purpose (killing the Behemoth), makes no sense.

Is that the purpose of the mini nuke? Killing the Behemoth? What do we know about the Behemoth?

 

[Sorrow]

That it needs to be killed with multiple mini nukes.

 

[Brother None]

Is that the purpose of the mini nuke? Killing the Behemoth? What do we know about the Behemoth?

Demo purpose. And I quote:
After a running firefight through roofless buildings punctuated by blasts of laser fire and intermittent explosions, you finally find yourself near your destination, the Galaxy News Radio Building. Before you can enter, you're thrown back as a huge building crumbles nearby. From its wreckage saunters a behemoth of a mutant - a giant by any definition. As the soldiers you're with desperately unload, you see a fallen body nearby with a strange device in its hands. Picking it up, you recognize it for what it is - a Fatman. Arming this portable nuclear catapult, the tiny bomb slides into place with a ding that sounds disturbingly like a diner lunch bell. As the giant mutant turns its eyes on you, you pull the trigger, and the bomb hurtles over to the beast's feet. The creature crashes down in a cloud of nuclear fallout. Slipping away from the surviving soldiers, you enter the nearby tower and climb to the top. Up above, you emerge onto a wide balcony. "It's about time," Mister Burke says, and hands you the detonator. In the distance, you can see the town. There's no turning back after this. The money's not really that good, now that you think about it. You press the button anyway...

 

[Salkinius]

Oh damn, I guess the Behemoth will be something really big and really out of touch the the world of Fallout. Sad stuff, sad stuff.

I had totaly repressed that from the GI preview. Ahh damn.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Personally I always felt that fallout was about the excess proliferation of nuclear technology, and kept that as a constant reminder with relics of the past cropping up.

I find it very appropriate if it is done in extreme moderation and handled very tastefully and restrictively.

If it is just another weapon to use casually, it's a horrible idea. But given the right setting and limitations, it can be done well.

Not to mention, they can create small explosion and high force nukes that they couldn't necessarily achieve without the force exerted by a nuclear reaction. A chemical bomb can only exert so much force compared to a nuke, even at smaller sizes. Oh, and they supposedly these days have clean nukes, or the potential for them.

 

[Sander]

Not to mention, they can create small explosion and high force nukes that they couldn't necessarily achieve without the force exerted by a nuclear reaction. A chemical bomb can only exert so much force compared to a nuke, even at smaller sizes.

Any nuclear weapon that you detonate at a small distance (eg. < 500 meters) can be easily recreated through chemical means.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Not to mention, they can create small explosion and high force nukes that they couldn't necessarily achieve without the force exerted by a nuclear reaction. A chemical bomb can only exert so much force compared to a nuke, even at smaller sizes.

Any nuclear weapon that you detonate at a small distance (eg. < 500 meters) can be easily recreated through chemical means.

I'm pretty sure that nuclear weapons have more force even with a smaller explosive radius?
Thats the idea behind nuclear bunker busters anyways.
They're supposedly "clean bombs" too.

 

[Sander]

I'm pretty sure that nuclear weapons have more force even with a smaller explosive radius?

Ehm, no, not really. A bomb has a certain force, and when it explodes its blast radius depends almost solely on that force. The source of that force (chemical or nuclear) doesn't matter for the range of such a weapon.

Thats the idea behind nuclear bunker busters anyways.
They're supposedly "clean bombs" too.

No nuclear bomb is entirely clean, but even if it were so it certainly doesn't fit in Fallout's setting.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Ehm, no, not really. A bomb has a certain force, and when it explodes its blast radius depends almost solely on that force. The source of that force (chemical or nuclear) doesn't matter for the range of such a weapon.

i thought yield and explosive radius don't directly correlate, although the measurement of yield does factor in the size of the explosion?

you can have a high force small radius explosion, yeah?

I'm not exactly an expert on the subject, thats just the impression I've been given.

No nuclear bomb is entirely clean, but even if it were so it certainly doesn't fit in Fallout's setting.

There's a controversy right now over "how clean" a clean nuke can really be.
but I agree, a clean bomb doesn't fit at all.