Tesla's 'Death Ray'

[Ratty Sr.]

Here's your words, again, Ratty:
"and there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be featured in Fallout 3."

That's hardly the same as 'well, they could work'.

Uh, yes, it pretty much is, and I still stand by that statement. There is a world of difference between "there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be featured in Fallout 3" (which I said) and "they should be featured in Fallout 3" (which is what you seem to think I said).

Drastically changing the size of established technology for the setting is not fitting for Science!, since you're changing something that's already been established and not introducing an entirely new concept.

I'm not changing anything. We have seen only *one* nuclear weapon in Fallout - the bomb in LA Vault. It was pretty big - so what? Look at this picture:

As you can plainly see, the warhead in Minuteman (1962) is as large as a human being. Even if the warhead in LA Vault was larger, it still couldn't have been larger than the very first thermonuclear warheads, deployed in 1955. If it took barely 7 years of technological development to reduce the size of thermonuclear warheads so they can be carried by ICBMs, how can introduction of ICBMs into Fallout universe be qualified as "drastic change"?

Oh, and 'I like ICBMS!!!' is? What the fuck, man?

How's that for twisting people's words?

No, I never said I liked ICBMs. I'm merely arguing against your baseless claim that ICBMs are a big no-no in the Fallout universe for some reason.

Other than that, no, it isn't just 'personal preference'. As I said, I think that Strangelove does have quite a bit of Fallout atmosphere around it.

Oh? Well, if Fallout and Strangelove are so congruent in terms of atmosphere, and we agree that nuclear holocaust in Dr. Strangelove was delivered by ICBMs, then you shouldn't have a problem with ICBMs existing in Fallout in addition to H-bombs, no?

...
Dumbass logic. If the force that created those could level an entire state, how come it didn't level California?
Also, those craters would be a few kilometers in diameter at most. Which is entirely plausible with weapons in the 50s.

Uh, they *did* level California. Or did you miss the fact that the entire place is a friggin' wasteland with not a single building left standing?

I'll cede the crater point to you. Now that I think about it, it's reasonable to assume most weapons were detonated before they even hit the ground, for maximum destructive effect.

Lastly, yes, they were straw men. You presented elements that were undisputably canon and fitting but largely incomporable to controversial ICBMs that can level entire continents. Hence, straw men.

All of those elements, including continent-leveling ICBMs, rest upon the same grounds - namely, 1950s Science! - and neither of them violate the setting, therefore they are comparable.

Holy shit, are you even trying?
You go from large craters kilometers in width to saying that what caused those craters leveled entire states (which is a ridiculous assumption), and then you expand being able to level a state to being able to level a *continent*. What?
As a point of reference, North America's surface is 24,490,000 square kilometers, while California's surface comprises a mere 410,000 square kilometers. That's 60 times as small a number, but due to the fact that no continent is square and the fact that a nuclear bomb's power/distance ratio is not a linear function at all, this wouldn't just require a bomb 60 times as powerful but thousands if not hundreds of thousands times more powerful.

Okay, then make them hundreds or thousands of times more powerful. It... doesn't... matter. Stop thinking in terms of what is scientifically plausible. For someone who is acutely aware of Science!, you seem to be awfully selective in applying it.

Anyway, the Beastlords could communicate and command animals. Through the power of their mind. They were fucking ridiculous. But hey, Science! could explain them, theoretically.

But thanks again for ignoring my point, Ratty.

What *is* the point? That not everything can be excused with science? Well, hello, Captain Obvious, of course there are always other considerations, such as established canon and what fits the style and themes. I apologize if my wording indicated otherwise. But ICBMs don't violate these other criteria, or at least I have yet to see proof that they do. ICBMs that level continents are more of a stretch, but even they can be made to fit just fine with some creative use of Science!.

 

[Sander]

Uh, yes, it pretty much is, and I still stand by that statement. There is a world of difference between "there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be featured in Fallout 3" (which I said) and "they should be featured in Fallout 3" (which is what you seem to think I said).

No, there really isn't.
Essentially, 'no reason why they shouldn't be featured' is a double negative. In the English language, it implies a need or at strong wish to have these things featured. Mainly because in saying this you are saying that there are no reasons not to include them. Remember that 'there is no use for them in the story' or 'we see no need to include them' are both reasons *against* inclusion.

If you were trying to express that there were no setting elements that would prohibit the use of ICBMs in a game, then you should have said that.

I'm not changing anything. We have seen only *one* nuclear weapon in Fallout - the bomb in LA Vault. It was pretty big - so what? Look at this picture:

As you can plainly see, the warhead in Minuteman (1962) is as large as a human being. Even if the warhead in LA Vault was larger, it still couldn't have been larger than the very first thermonuclear warheads, deployed in 1955. If it took barely 7 years of technological development to reduce the size of thermonuclear warheads so they can be carried by ICBMs, how can introduction of ICBMs into Fallout universe be qualified as "drastic change"?

Because it can be easily (and rightfully) assumed that the LA bomb was at or near the pinnacle of nuclear development at that time.

Then again, looking at the strength of these bombs, size relative to power hasn't actually decreased much at all over the past 50 years.

Note, though, that a warhead is different from a normal bomb and that we have never seen any development of any kind of warheads in Fallout, outside of the rocket launcher.

Oh? Well, if Fallout and Strangelove are so congruent in terms of atmosphere, and we agree that nuclear holocaust in Dr. Strangelove was delivered by ICBMs, then you shouldn't have a problem with ICBMs existing in Fallout in addition to H-bombs, no?

Stop twisting my words, Ratty.

Uh, they *did* level California. Or did you miss the fact that the entire place is a friggin' wasteland with not a single building left standing?

No, they didn't. For one, there was no single bomb that leveled California, there were many, many different bombs. Secondly, a lot of the cities' remnants are still standing. Thirdly, most of the desert was already in place before the bombs fell.

All of those elements, including continent-leveling ICBMs, rest upon the same grounds - namely, 1950s Science! - and neither of them violate the setting, therefore they are comparable.

All of those elements *except* continent-leveling ICBMs fit 50s setting. Which was my point. You then tried to give examples of equally scientifically ludicrous elements that *did* fit the setting and were not controversial to somehow try to show that a continent-levelling ICBM would be fitting.
Again, straw men. It completely sidesteps the argument of *why* it would be fitting.

Okay, then make them hundreds or thousands of times more powerful. It... doesn't... matter. Stop thinking in terms of what is scientifically plausible. For someone who is acutely aware of Science!, you seem to be awfully selective in applying it.

No, I seem to be somewhat aware of what works and what doesn't. Science! has its limitations in set canon, and that includes the science level of comparable devices. You wouldn't give a plasma pistol the same power as a plasma rifle for that reason, for instance.

Hence why I really, really don't see how the plain evidence of a rather large bomb being about enough to level the cathedral can lead you to believe that a bomb capable of destroying an entire continent would be made fitting through the very creative use of Science!

What *is* the point? That not everything can be excused with science? Well, hello, Captain Obvious, of course there are always other considerations, such as established canon and what fits the style and themes. I apologize if my wording indicated otherwise. But ICBMs don't violate these other criteria, or at least I have yet to see proof that they do. ICBMs that level continents are more of a stretch, but even they can be made to fit just fine with some creative use of Science!.

And you're doing it again. Your solution is to creatively apply Science! so it fits. That's not the point at all. You're now saying 'Hey, Science! can explain, so *hence* it fits' and that's retarded reasoning. It's not that something fits because Science! can explain it, but that Science! can explain it because it fits the setting.

 

[Vox]

http://www.abc-waffen.de/Atom/waffen.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM


The first long range missile was created in 1953.

The first intercontinental missile was built in 1955.

 

[starkc]

After some research on Tesla I found out that heaps of his technological miracles were ignored and forgotten.

Good for you.
And now what?
Also note that out of all those heaps of 'miracles' almost none were actually proven.

Actually, he found a way to transfer energy like information over a wifi connection. This technology has recently been picked back up. I call that a miracle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer



The Tesla "coil" was also very successful, and inspired the design of the flyback transformer, which is letting you read this if you're using a CRT monitor.

His paper, "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media" is the cornerstone of current weapons devolpment (which the US has successfully devolped and tested, but size of the generators/transformers/etc. needed to supply the energy required renders them immobile) in the "Magnet-Rail". The US DODs wroking prototype can put a 20ft long , 2ft wide Tungsten rod through just about anything from Soviet T-80 tanks to reinforced concrete bunkers. So it can be reasoned that this theory/invention also works.

Also, his death-ray actually worked on the small scale, he reportedly killed test animals with it. It was when he made a big one, that it failed. Apparently it either didn't work or missed his target (the north pole) by soo much that it appeared to have failed.




BBC did a piece on it a while ago too, it's really interesting stuff.



Regardless, I think adding "Tesla" weapons would be interesting. And the inclusion of the Death Ray would make for a good story tool or dynamic if paired with creative writing.


ICBMs

The US put it's first ICBM (the ATLAS) into service in 1959. Although it's possible for them to exist in the Fallout universe (and likely if we remember that the great war happened in the late 21st century) it would be improbable for them to exist if we're using 1950's technology as our basis for what was around.

However, that was the first ICBM, not the first rocket with IC capabilities. Soviet scientists created a rocket with ICBM capabilities before that, evidenced by the Sputnik launch. I believe the lead scientists name was "Korolev" or "Korov", I don't remember. But I do remember that his rocket was not based on the V2 like the American models. But I can't remember what it was called either.

In conclusion, it is up to personal opinion as to the state of technology in the Fallout universe upon the occurance of the Great War. I assume that because the war is fought in the future and there are laser and plasma cannons that there are also ICBMs. The rocket technology was there, so why not?



Finally, "Chad"

My job with the Air Force (US) requires me to know this, and I have worked with these aircraft before in training. Long story short, I am familiar with both the aircraft and it's capabilities.

The B-52 Stratofortress was introduced in 1954 (still serving today) it's effective combat radius, that is, combat range on a single tank of gas, is 8'800 miles/14'080 kilometers (this is of the current service models, the original was about half that, so for our purposes, 4'480mi/7'210km). This means it can fly just about anywhere in the world and drop a shitload of munitions. During the Cold war, there were B-52s stationed in Europe and I believe the Near-East (Turkey). The USSR was an easy and obvious target.

I am literally an expert on present day military aircraft, but not so much historical. If someone knows something I don't or can correct any wrong information, please do.

The Soviets principle Strategic bomber in the 1950's was the M-4 "Bison" (NATO designation). It's range was 4'480mi/5'600km (not positive). Which from the Soviets airbases in the Far Northeast of Siberia, could reach the US. I am not sure where else they had bases, but the SAC was worried enough about this that they put interceptor squadrons in Alaska specifically to defend against this.


So it a FACT that the US and the USSR were able to bomb each other. Not only that, but in the early-mid fifties, where Fallout's technology seems to come from. So we can conclude that long range strategic bombers exist in the Fallout universe.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Essentially, 'no reason why they shouldn't be featured' is a double negative. In the English language, it implies a need or at strong wish to have these things featured.

If that's true, it's new to me. Americans, Kharn, is that true?

Remember that 'there is no use for them in the story' or 'we see no need to include them' are both reasons *against* inclusion.

Wrong. By that logic, there was no need to include FEV either, as super mutants could have just as easily been explained with radiation. In fact, that would have been much more in accordance with 1950s SF.

Because it can be easily (and rightfully) assumed that the LA bomb was at or near the pinnacle of nuclear development at that time.

A shot in the dark, and it doesn't make much sense. In fact, it's more reasonable to assume that such an installation would be outfitted with an obsolete bomb. After all, the military needs its most powerful weapons deployed against its enemies, and not gathering dust in some Vault.

Then again, looking at the strength of these bombs, size relative to power hasn't actually decreased much at all over the past 50 years.

I see what you are getting at. And it's true, size relative to power hasn't decreased too much, but mass relative to power has decreased considerably. Take MK-54, for example - it's the smallest warhead ever deployed (weighing only about 20 kg) and the first variant had 0.02 kiloton yield. The latest variant, W-72, has 0.6 kiloton yield, while retaining the same weight.

And please keep in mind that Fallout is sci-fi, and much greater leaps of technology are possible (and have happened) in the Fallout universe. Micro fusion cells, for example.

Warheads that annihilate continents are possible!

Note, though, that a warhead is different from a normal bomb and that we have never seen any development of any kind of warheads in Fallout, outside of the rocket launcher.

Good, then we may safely introduce thermonuclear warheads without contradicting existing lore.

Stop twisting my words, Ratty.

Twisting your words? You are the one who noted similarity in atmosphere between Fallout and Dr. Strangelove. It's not my fault the argument undermines your position, especially since one of the most Fallout-y scenes in the movie is the one where ICBMs destroy the world while "We'll Meet Again" plays in the background...

No, they didn't. For one, there was no single bomb that leveled California, there were many, many different bombs.

It's true there were many different bombs, but that doesn't mean a thing. Reds launched everything they had, which was likely many times the yield needed to annihilate America.

Secondly, a lot of the cities' remnants are still standing.

No kidding, don't forget to note that mountains are still standing, too. When I say "level", I don't mean literally "make as flat as a panel".

Thirdly, most of the desert was already in place before the bombs fell.

Not really, California is only about 1/4 desert. Nevada is mostly desert, though.

All of those elements *except* continent-leveling ICBMs fit 50s setting. Which was my point. You then tried to give examples of equally scientifically ludicrous elements that *did* fit the setting and were not controversial to somehow try to show that a continent-levelling ICBM would be fitting.
Again, straw men. It completely sidesteps the argument of *why* it would be fitting.

Seeing as a) ICBMs fit the setting, and b) doomsday weapons fit the setting, I see no reason why continent-leveling ICBMs wouldn't fit the setting.

No, I seem to be somewhat aware of what works and what doesn't. Science! has its limitations in set canon, and that includes the science level of comparable devices. You wouldn't give a plasma pistol the same power as a plasma rifle for that reason, for instance.

Good thing so little is known about nuclear weapons technology in the Fallout universe, then, that there aren't many limitations to consider.

By the way, it just occurred to me that my doomsday ICBM doesn't even need to deliver continent-wide destruction by means of a thermonuclear explosion. Instead, it could carry a cobalt warhead and kill everything with radiation, like in the novel On The Beach. That would be awesome.

And you're doing it again. Your solution is to creatively apply Science! so it fits. That's not the point at all. You're now saying 'Hey, Science! can explain, so *hence* it fits' and that's retarded reasoning. It's not that something fits because Science! can explain it, but that Science! can explain it because it fits the setting.

The idea of continent-leveling ICBMs fits the setting fine, but it has no basis in canon and even seems to contradict it at a superficial glance. However, by cleverly using Science! as a device to "explain" the technology behind them, they can be introduced into the canon without any contradictions. This is perfectly legit use of Science!, and it doesn't contradict my previous point about established canon, style and whatnot. If you recall, Science! was already used that way, to justify G.E.C.K., a device which makes sense in a post-apocalyptic sci-fi setting, but has no basis at all in what is known about technology of the Fallout universe (A device that can build cities, make a desert fertile and fit into a suitcase? Come on!).

 

[Sander]

Wrong. By that logic, there was no need to include FEV either, as super mutants could have just as easily been explained with radiation. In fact, that would have been much more in accordance with 1950s SF.

Not my point. I was illustrating why your choice of words was wrong, not whether or not the logic was right, because that obviously isn't the case.

A shot in the dark, and it doesn't make much sense. In fact, it's more reasonable to assume that such an installation would be outfitted with an obsolete bomb. After all, the military needs its most powerful weapons deployed against its enemies, and not gathering dust in some Vault.

I'm not quite sure why that bomb was there in the first place, though. Heh.

I see what you are getting at. And it's true, size relative to power hasn't decreased too much, but mass relative to power has decreased considerably. Take MK-54, for example - it's the smallest warhead ever deployed (weighing only about 20 kg) and the first variant had 0.02 kiloton yield. The latest variant, W-72, has 0.6 kiloton yield, while retaining the same weight.

And please keep in mind that Fallout is sci-fi, and much greater leaps of technology are possible (and have happened) in the Fallout universe. Micro fusion cells, for example.

Warheads that annihilate continents are possible!

Again: sc-fi does not excuse fucking over realism in unnecessary ways or to excuse something you think would be cool.

Good, then we may safely introduce thermonuclear warheads without contradicting existing lore.

Eh....what?
That it doesn't contradict lore doesn't mean that it's fitting.

Twisting your words? You are the one who noted similarity in atmosphere between Fallout and Dr. Strangelove. It's not my fault the argument undermines your position, especially since one of the most Fallout-y scenes in the movie is the one where ICBMs destroy the world while "We'll Meet Again" plays in the background...

Ugh. Did you even watch the film? There's so much more to that film that reeks of Fallout than the closing montage.

And again, I said that it carried an atmosphere similar to Fallout's. That doesn't mean I suddenly condone using everything from Dr. Strangelove in Fallout. That's what I meant by twisting my words. Or, gee, a straw man, because you take an extreme of my position and then try to contradict that instead of my actual position.

Now cut it out, Ratty, and start using some decent logical reasoning.

It's true there were many different bombs, but that doesn't mean a thing. Reds launched everything they had, which was likely many times the yield needed to annihilate America.

And this has a bearing on a single bomb destroying California how, exactly?

No kidding, don't forget to note that mountains are still standing, too. When I say "level", I don't mean literally "make as flat as a panel".

Then what do you mean, Ratty, because I can't bloody well read minds?

Not really, California is only about 1/4 desert. Nevada is mostly desert, though.

Convenient then that Fallout 2 is partially located in Nevada, and much of Fallout 1's landscape is located around Death Valley and the Mojave Desert.

Seeing as a) ICBMs fit the setting, and b) doomsday weapons fit the setting, I see no reason why continent-leveling ICBMs wouldn't fit the setting.

God-bloody-dammit, you're doing it again. *Why* are ICBMs fitting and *why* are continent-leveling ICBMs fitting if ICBMs themselves would still be developing.

Hell, why wouldn't they even have been fired instead of the thousands of bombers (or ICBMs) that were already fired in the war if they were detonation ready?

Good thing so little is known about nuclear weapons technology in the Fallout universe, then, that there aren't many limitations to consider.

Ehm, not really. There is, of course, the strength of the Cathedral's nuclear weapon, the strength of the bomb aboard the Oil Platform and the extent of destruction single bombs created. Like, you know, the craters you yourself named as an example of the strength of a bomb. Upon which I showed that a nuclear bomb that could destroy a continent would need a few thousand times that power, if not a lot more.
So, yes, Ratty, we do know quite a bit about nuclear weapons tech.

By the way, it just occurred to me that my doomsday ICBM doesn't even need to deliver continent-wide destruction by means of a thermonuclear explosion. Instead, it could carry a cobalt warhead and kill everything with radiation, like in the novel On The Beach. That would be awesome.

Nah, that'd just be a shitload of ghouls.
And, due to wind patterns, it would automatically mean contiminating the entire world as well.
...
Y'know, that'd be fun. Then you'd have people retreating back into the Vaults again.

The idea of continent-leveling ICBMs fits the setting fine, but it has no basis in canon and even seems to contradict it at a superficial glance. However, by cleverly using Science! as a device to "explain" the technology behind them, they can be introduced into the canon without any contradictions. This is perfectly legit use of Science!, and it doesn't contradict my previous point about established canon, style and whatnot. If you recall, Science! was already used that way, to justify G.E.C.K., a device which makes sense in a post-apocalyptic sci-fi setting, but has no basis at all in what is known about technology of the Fallout universe (A device that can build cities, make a desert fertile and fit into a suitcase? Come on!).

Gee, you display a surprising lack of knowledge about Fallout lore as well. The GECK could not build cities, Ratty, it could fertilise and prepare land for a return to the surface. It wasn't a miracle device that could build an entire city.
Yeesh.

Other than that, you really don't get it, do you? Science! is fine as long as it fits the level of technology of the rest of the world. Stowing in a continent-levelling ICBM in Fallout is aking to, I don't know, stowing a Death Star into a pulp sci-fi setting where the rest of the technological level is about that of space-shuttles. Sure, you can say Science! and be done with it, but that doesn't mean it's fitting or that it feels right to anyone observing it.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I'm not quite sure why that bomb was there in the first place, though. Heh.

I always wondered about that, too. It just doesn't make sense that Vault-Tec would install a nuclear device in their demonstration vault in the middle of a densely populated metropolis. A possible explanation is that it was set up in the final year of the war, to keep the sensitive Vault technology from falling into wrong hands (not an unlikely prospect with all the rioting in major US cities).

Again: sc-fi does not excuse fucking over realism in unnecessary ways or to excuse something you think would be cool.

"Realism"? Almost *all* high technology in Fallout flies in the face of realism. That's what makes it sci-fi, sheesh. I still haven't heard a single argument that proves it's impossible for a prototype of a doomsday ICBM to exist in the Fallout world at the time of the nuclear exchange. The fact that such development isn't "realistic" in the real world is no argument.

Eh....what?
That it doesn't contradict lore doesn't mean that it's fitting.

No, but it's an important prerequisite.

And this has a bearing on a single bomb destroying California how, exactly?

Read your own post. You tried to use fact that Reds hit California with "many, many bombs" to prove that a single bomb couldn't have destroyed the state, which makes no sense, as it's likely that Reds launched more than was needed.

Then what do you mean, Ratty, because I can't bloody well read minds?

I mean it would cause near-complete devastation. You know, like any other nuclear weapon, only on a larger scale.

Convenient then that Fallout 2 is partially located in Nevada, and much of Fallout 1's landscape is located around Death Valley and the Mojave Desert.

Hah, and what about Fallout 2, which also encompasses north California and a part of Oregon? There isn't nearly as much in terms of deserts there.

God-bloody-dammit, you're doing it again. *Why* are ICBMs fitting and *why* are continent-leveling ICBMs fitting if ICBMs themselves would still be developing.

Hellooo, it's ICBMs. When Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, it caused so much hysteria in the US that people practically expected soviet nuclear missiles to start raining death any minute. Rockets delivering nuclear warheads practically scream 1950s sci-fi.

Who says ICBMs themselves would still be developing? If you go by Fallout and Fallout 2, nothing at all is said about ICBMs, so they are fair game. If you go by what was intended for Van Buren, then there is already an operational orbital missile station in 2073, so there is nothing unreasonable about introducing ICBMs into the universe as well. So the only controversial issue is that of a warhead powerful enough to devastate an entire continent, and that can be explained with Science!.

Hell, why wouldn't they even have been fired instead of the thousands of bombers (or ICBMs) that were already fired in the war if they were detonation ready?

Maybe they weren't detonation ready. Maybe they were still missing a part or two, and plot might involve the madman fervently searching for those parts. Maybe the crew of the missile base refused the order to launch and then deserted from the army (they wouldn't be the first ones nor the last ones to do so for moral reasons).

Ehm, not really. There is, of course, the strength of the Cathedral's nuclear weapon, the strength of the bomb aboard the Oil Platform and the extent of destruction single bombs created.

I thought we established that we don't really know anything concrete about the Cathedral bomb, besides the fact that it's pretty big. Hell, it could be an old A-bomb.

Wasn't the explosion in the Enclave caused by overload of their fusion reactor?

Like, you know, the craters you yourself named as an example of the strength of a bomb. Upon which I showed that a nuclear bomb that could destroy a continent would need a few thousand times that power, if not a lot more.

You know what's funny? The Fallout 1 map doesn't have any craters. Here, look:

http://www.falloutvault.com/images/0/0b/F1world_map.jpg

Call me blind, but I see only a few blotches there that vaguely resemble craters, but more likely they are just natural geographic formations.

Fallout 2 map has even less in terms of craters:

http://fallout.486games.net/fallout2_map.jpg

Conclusion - craters were a brain fart on my part.

The existence of craters is mentioned by Cassidy, however. According to him, there are craters that are "miles wide". According to this rather old interview with the late Eugene Shoemaker (one of the greatest experts on asteroids and other space garbage), a 10 km crater is caused by an impact with 10,000 megaton yield, or 200 times the yield of the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever detonated (Tsar Bomba, 50 Mt, which is capable of incinerating everything within a 100 km radius). Even if we are generous and assume that Cassidy's craters (heh, sounds like the name of a ride in a theme park) are smaller, and then, going by that assumption, assume that the <strike>ICBM warheads</strike> bombs used in Fallout had half or quarter that yield (say, between 1000 and 5000 Mt), they were still insanely powerful. Science! powerful, in fact. In light of that, and if you go by what Cassidy says, I think the prospect of a warhead capable of wiping out a continent isn't that unrealistic in the Fallout universe.

So, yes, Ratty, we do know quite a bit about nuclear weapons tech.

We do know a bit more now. Thanks Gene Shoemaker and Cassidy!

Nah, that'd just be a shitload of ghouls.
And, due to wind patterns, it would automatically mean contiminating the entire world as well.
...
Y'know, that'd be fun. Then you'd have people retreating back into the Vaults again.

See? My plot idea is salvageable!

Er, not that it needed salvaging.

Gee, you display a surprising lack of knowledge about Fallout lore as well. The GECK could not build cities, Ratty, it could fertilise and prepare land for a return to the surface. It wasn't a miracle device that could build an entire city.
Yeesh.

Wait, isn't GECK supposed to be capable of replicating construction materials composed of ultra-light polymers (mixed with dirt to give them color and texture)? I seem to recall Saint talking about it some years back, but maybe it was just his wishful thinking. It would explain why buildings in Shady Sands and Vault City all look the same. The idea that GECK is nothing but a really compact farm tractor kinda sucks.

Other than that, you really don't get it, do you? Science! is fine as long as it fits the level of technology of the rest of the world. Stowing in a continent-levelling ICBM in Fallout is aking to, I don't know, stowing a Death Star into a pulp sci-fi setting where the rest of the technological level is about that of space-shuttles. Sure, you can say Science! and be done with it, but that doesn't mean it's fitting or that it feels right to anyone observing it.

Sorry, but I don't see how my idea of a super-powerful ICBM is in such a stark contrast with the technology of the rest of the world. Sure, it's a great leap, but it's also a conceivable leap, and nowhere near as implausible as you portray it to be.

EDIT: Saint's post that confused me about GECK is in this thread.

EDIT #2: I just remembered that Fallout 2 intro mentions "spears of nuclear fire" that "rained from the skies". If those aren't ICBMs, I don't know what is.

 

[Vox]

F1: Theres a big fat crater next to the Cathedral and some smaller ones.

F2: There are 2 craters near Redding.

 

[Sander]

"Realism"? Almost *all* high technology in Fallout flies in the face of realism. That's what makes it sci-fi, sheesh. I still haven't heard a single argument that proves it's impossible for a prototype of a doomsday ICBM to exist in the Fallout world at the time of the nuclear exchange. The fact that such development isn't "realistic" in the real world is no argument.

Relative realism, Ratty.

Read your own post. You tried to use fact that Reds hit California with "many, many bombs" to prove that a single bomb couldn't have destroyed the state, which makes no sense, as it's likely that Reds launched more than was needed.

Yes, I know that. Again I ask how this has a bearing on a single bomb destroying the entire state?
You see, if the Russians used overkill, overkill doesn't entail destroying a state twenty times over.

Hah, and what about Fallout 2, which also encompasses north California and a part of Oregon? There isn't nearly as much in terms of deserts there.

Not really relevant, since a very large part of Fallout 2 takes place in Nevada anyway.

Eh, Fallout's entire setting revolves around wastelands, anyway. Nuclear wastelands at that. Caused by a mix of nuclear Fallout and nuclear bombs. It's hard to say which caused which.

Hellooo, it's ICBMs. When Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, it caused so much hysteria in the US that people practically expected soviet nuclear missiles to start raining death any minute. Rockets delivering nuclear warheads practically scream 1950s sci-fi.

No, not really.
For one, we don't know whether the space race actually existed in Fallout. Most probably not. There's nothing even remotely related to space (unless you count the ridiculous space shuttle in San Francisco) in any game, so that's pretty much out of the question, really.

ICBMs are a much more complicated mess, though. Mainly because they require different technology and a different setting. Rockets raining down holy fire from hell are decent, but a true ICBM? Eh, man, it really, really doesn't feel right.

Hmm...Jericho, for instance, featured two instances of direct nuclear threat to the town: the first being an ICBM flying over, and the second being bombers dropping something (could've been bombs, turned out to be supplies). Guess which one felt Fallout-y and which one didn't?

Who says ICBMs themselves would still be developing? If you go by Fallout and Fallout 2, nothing at all is said about ICBMs, so they are fair game. If you go by what was intended for Van Buren, then there is already an operational orbital missile station in 2073, so there is nothing unreasonable about introducing ICBMs into the universe as well.

That's easily the most controversial bit of Van Buren anyway. Although certainly 50s pulp sci-fi, it would require a lot of skill to get right and fit well into Fallout's canon and setting.

So the only controversial issue is that of a warhead powerful enough to devastate an entire continent, and that can be explained with Science!.

Anything can be explained with Science! Again, that doesn't make it fitting.

Also, that full stop you put after Science! is fucking ugly.

Maybe they weren't detonation ready. Maybe they were still missing a part or two, and plot might involve the madman fervently searching for those parts. Maybe the crew of the missile base refused the order to launch and then deserted from the army (they wouldn't be the first ones nor the last ones to do so for moral reasons).

What, with nukes raining down on them and their families being destroyed? Highly unlikely. And since they'd be in a nuclear bunker, their being bombed wouldn't really be meaningful either.

If they were unfinished it's extremely unlikely that there weren't any, say, half-continent bombs ready. Unless this 'nuclear bomb' isn't actually a nuclear bomb but an entirely unrelated doomsday device.

I do think that a doomsday device like that lacks the right dark irony to be an essential plot point. You know, the dark irony of trying to replace the human race with a flawed master race.

I thought we established that we don't really know anything concrete about the Cathedral bomb, besides the fact that it's pretty big. Hell, it could be an old A-bomb.

Wasn't the explosion in the Enclave caused by overload of their fusion reactor?

Not really sure, actually. It developed a mushroom cloud in any case.

You know what's funny? The Fallout 1 map doesn't have any craters. Here, look:

http://www.falloutvault.com/images/0/0b/F1world_map.jpg

Call me blind, but I see only a few blotches there that vaguely resemble craters, but more likely they are just natural geographic formations.

That's impossible to say.
But hey, look at the Glow.

Fallout 2 map has even less in terms of craters:

http://fallout.486games.net/fallout2_map.jpg

Conclusion - craters were a brain fart on my part.

Yep, although there clearly went a lot less effort into the Fallout 2 map than the Fallout 1 map.

The existence of craters is mentioned by Cassidy, however. According to him, there are craters that are "miles wide". According to this rather old interview with the late Eugene Shoemaker (one of the greatest experts on asteroids and other space garbage), a 10 km crater is caused by an impact with 10,000 megaton yield, or 200 times the yield of the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever detonated (Tsar Bomba, 50 Mt, which is capable of incinerating everything within a 100 km radius). Even if we are generous and assume that Cassidy's craters (heh, sounds like the name of a ride in a theme park) are smaller, and then, going by that assumption, assume that the <strike>ICBM warheads</strike> bombs used in Fallout had half or quarter that yield (say, between 1000 and 5000 Mt), they were still insanely powerful. Science! powerful, in fact. In light of that, and if you go by what Cassidy says, I think the prospect of a warhead capable of wiping out a continent isn't that unrealistic in the Fallout universe.

...
Okay, this is even fucking dumber.
Ooh, a 100 km radius bomb=>CONTINENT DESTROYED.
Nope, Ratty, the logic still doesn't work.

Wait, isn't GECK supposed to be capable of replicating construction materials composed of ultra-light polymers (mixed with dirt to give them color and texture)? I seem to recall Saint talking about it some years back, but maybe it was just his wishful thinking. It would explain why buildings in Shady Sands and Vault City all look the same. The idea that GECK is nothing but a really compact farm tractor kinda sucks.

Sucky or not, it's TEH TRUTH!!!!11

Or at least, for as far as we know. The bible claims so, anyway. And just plainly put, it's a lot more sensible than 'POOF! WALLS!'. It would also explain why, say, Arroyo was essentially a piece of shit town (though obviously built with the same tech as Vault City) and Vault City was teh r0xxor: the GECK can perhaps prepare a lot, but a lot of good work needs to be done as well.

EDIT: Saint's post that confused me about GECK is in this thread.

Interesting thread, that. Though I think Saint's explanation at the least is pretty much wrong. You can't just create cubic meters of polymer-walls from a few cubic centimeters of monomers.

Also from that thread:

Straight from the pages of "The Vault Dweller's Survival Guide," Chapter 5 Page 34

When the All Clear sounds on your radio, you don't want to be caught without...

THE GARDEN OF EDEN CREATION KIT!!

The kit includes:

Base Replication Unit- replicates food and basic items needed for building your new world. Just add water! (powered by cold fusion)

So, it can replicate food (though undoubtdly not limitless) and 'basic items'. Still somewhat nondescript, but, say, fertilizer and a few non-organic building blocks would seem most reasonable. Because otherwise the GECK would probably have said 'INSTA-TOWN!'

EDIT #2: I just remembered that Fallout 2 intro mentions "spears of nuclear fire" that "rained from the skies". If those aren't ICBMs, I don't know what is.

True.

Eh, let's just cut out the whole continent-destroying ICBM debate. It's getting weary and rather pointless, and it's in part contingent on ICBMs existing anyway.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Yes, I know that. Again I ask how this has a bearing on a single bomb destroying the entire state?
You see, if the Russians used overkill, overkill doesn't entail destroying a state twenty times over.

I don't deny that. The purpose of my overkill argument wasn't to reinforce my position, but rather to undermine yours and create a status quo on this particular issue.

No, not really.
For one, we don't know whether the space race actually existed in Fallout. Most probably not. There's nothing even remotely related to space (unless you count the ridiculous space shuttle in San Francisco) in any game, so that's pretty much out of the question, really.

ICBMs are a much more complicated mess, though. Mainly because they require different technology and a different setting. Rockets raining down holy fire from hell are decent, but a true ICBM? Eh, man, it really, really doesn't feel right.

Hmm...Jericho, for instance, featured two instances of direct nuclear threat to the town: the first being an ICBM flying over, and the second being bombers dropping something (could've been bombs, turned out to be supplies). Guess which one felt Fallout-y and which one didn't?

Well, if the Fallout universe split off from our own in 1950s, then they had to be familiar with basics of modern rocketry. Whether anything became of that knowledge is up to the writers to decide. Either way would work, if you ask me.

As for ICBMs - did you know that R-7, the rocket which delivered Sputnik to space (and caused mass hysteria) was also the world's first ICBM? Sure, its guidance system was shit and it's largely considered a failure as a ballistic missile, but still, it nicely illustrates that space race was directly tied to development of ICBMs from day one. Or, in other words - if a rocket can get into the orbit, it can get anywhere.

As to what feels more Fallout-y - personally, I think ICBMs lend more to the whole nuclear scare feel, because, unlike bombers, they can't be intercepted or shot down (or rather, that was the case until the '70s, but that's beside the point). Until 1957, most Americans didn't really feel all that threatened by a nuclear war against USSR, because they didn't fully comprehend how terrible it would be, and also because they were confident America would win (Some were even crazy enough to advocate a preemptive strike against the Soviets!). But Sputnik launch made Americans understand that USSR was ahead in the technological race, and thus many began to think that if tensions between the two rivals ever escalated into a nuclear war, USA would most likely lose (even though American nuclear arsenal was considerably greater at that time). Belligerent rhetoric of Khrushchev and the Soviet leadership ("We will bury you.") didn't help things, either - on the contrary, everyone was now convinced them blasted Reds would attack any minute. This paranoia would continue for years and play a part in many great works of fiction (Dr. Strangelove not being the least of them).

Anyway, I've been a bit too verbose, but you get my point - ICBMs are integral to the nuclear scare of the 1950s and early 1960s, and therefore I feel they can add a lot to the Fallout setting if skillfully introduced.

That's easily the most controversial bit of Van Buren anyway. Although certainly 50s pulp sci-fi, it would require a lot of skill to get right and fit well into Fallout's canon and setting.

Good thing, then, that Fallout 3 is in skilled hands.

Oh, wait... Damn.

Expect a plot where a (level-scaled) lunatic madman launches ICBMs and you have to remotely disable their guidance systems before they reach their targets. You must hurry, as ICBMs will reach their targets any minute now. Oooh, look, a <strike>dungeon</strike> military supply depot with no purpose in the game world whatsoever. I *must* check that out. I better hurry, though, ICBMs will reach their targets any minute now. Aw man, I love how that rat turned into a deathclaw as I leveled up. Whoa, cool, now I join the <strike>Dark</strike> Brotherhood of Steel and, twenty military supply depots later, I become their leader. No, Maxson, I don't care that you saw a radscorpion today. ICBMs will reach their targets any minute now. Gotta hurry, the main plot- ... awesome, now I'm also the leader of the <strike>Mages'</strike> Telepaths' Guild, even though I never <strike>cast a spell</strike> bent a spoon with the power of my mind in my life, and ICBMs will reach their targets any minute now. Gotta find the main baddie quick - you there, tell me where the main baddie is! [Bribe] Here's ten bottle caps. [Admire] You have really neatly-trimmed eyebrows. [Coerce] Tell me where the main baddie is before I shove my plasma rifle up your ass, maggot! [Boast] I once stood on my head for three hours straight! Cool, now I know where the main baddie is. Ph34R my mad Energy Weapons skillz! (actually, it's only 4%, but who cares, it's not like skill level factors into attacks) The lunatic madman is dead, ICBMs are stopped, game won. Now let me see if they released any add-ons. Oooh, look, an armor for my brahmin, and it costs only $6...

What, with nukes raining down on them and their families being destroyed? Highly unlikely. And since they'd be in a nuclear bunker, their being bombed wouldn't really be meaningful either.

If they were unfinished it's extremely unlikely that there weren't any, say, half-continent bombs ready. Unless this 'nuclear bomb' isn't actually a nuclear bomb but an entirely unrelated doomsday device.

I do think that a doomsday device like that lacks the right dark irony to be an essential plot point. You know, the dark irony of trying to replace the human race with a flawed master race.

Well, um, like I said earlier, I haven't worked out all the details yet.

That's impossible to say.
But hey, look at the Glow.

True, and it's said somewhere that Glow was bombed a lot. It's a bit odd, the hole that was created by bombs is relatively small. Either the nuclear weapons in Fallout are inaccurate, or the West Tek facility was so heavily shielded it took a dozen or more nukes to bust it.

Yep, although there clearly went a lot less effort into the Fallout 2 map than the Fallout 1 map.

Fallout 2 map is probably just a satellite image touched up in Photoshop. Fallout 1 map is clearly hand-painted.

...
Okay, this is even fucking dumber.
Ooh, a 100 km radius bomb=>CONTINENT DESTROYED.
Nope, Ratty, the logic still doesn't work.

Tsar Bomba (50 Mt), a real-life weapon tested in 1961, is the one that burns everything in a 100 km radius. It actually caused windows to break in Finland, a pretty impressive feat when you consider that it was detonated on Novaya Zemlya (by "windows" I of course mean windows on buildings, not the Microsoft operating system - those other Windows break just fine without the help of Tsar Bomba). If we agree that what Cassidy says is canon, and assume that blast radius is quadratically related to weapon yield (not sure how accurate that is), then a 5000 Mt bomb (presumably common in the Fallout universe) would have a ten times greater blast radius than Tsar Bomba, or 1000 km. In other words, such a bomb would lay waste to an entire country!

Of course, my "continent-buster" would need to be a hundred times more powerful than that.

Interesting thread, that. Though I think Saint's explanation at the least is pretty much wrong. You can't just create cubic meters of polymer-walls from a few cubic centimeters of monomers.

Also from that thread:

Straight from the pages of "The Vault Dweller's Survival Guide," Chapter 5 Page 34

When the All Clear sounds on your radio, you don't want to be caught without...

THE GARDEN OF EDEN CREATION KIT!!

The kit includes:

Base Replication Unit- replicates food and basic items needed for building your new world. Just add water! (powered by cold fusion)

So, it can replicate food (though undoubtdly not limitless) and 'basic items'. Still somewhat nondescript, but, say, fertilizer and a few non-organic building blocks would seem most reasonable. Because otherwise the GECK would probably have said 'INSTA-TOWN!'

I think it's safe to assume that GECK can't produce too many building blocks, nor does it need to. It just needs to churn out enough to build housing for a population of one Vault (no more than 1000 residents, except for that one overcrowded Vault). If SP is right and even our technology allows us to make a 10 cm polymeric cube with just one gram of monomers, then I'm willing to accept that GECK can produce enough construction material for a small village with, say, a couple of hundred grams of raw monomers (presumably packed under great pressure, otherwise I don't know how they would fit into that small suitcase).

I'm not convinced it can replicate food, though. Soil, maybe, but food? That sounds a bit took Star Trek-y.

True.

Eh, let's just cut out the whole continent-destroying ICBM debate. It's getting weary and rather pointless, and it's in part contingent on ICBMs existing anyway.

OK. It's been cutting into my gaming time, anyway. Which is especially unacceptable when I'm playing Darklands.

 

[Sander]

Well, if the Fallout universe split off from our own in 1950s, then they had to be familiar with basics of modern rocketry. Whether anything became of that knowledge is up to the writers to decide. Either way would work, if you ask me.

As for ICBMs - did you know that R-7, the rocket which delivered Sputnik to space (and caused mass hysteria) was also the world's first ICBM? Sure, its guidance system was shit and it's largely considered a failure as a ballistic missile, but still, it nicely illustrates that space race was directly tied to development of ICBMs from day one. Or, in other words - if a rocket can get into the orbit, it can get anywhere.

Yes, I did know that. But as you said, the technology was very flawed for use as an ICBM. One of the reasons why I feel that ICBMs, at least in widespread use, is not fitting for Fallout.

As to what feels more Fallout-y - personally, I think ICBMs lend more to the whole nuclear scare feel, because, unlike bombers, they can't be intercepted or shot down (or rather, that was the case until the '70s, but that's beside the point). Until 1957, most Americans didn't really feel all that threatened by a nuclear war against USSR, because they didn't fully comprehend how terrible it would be, and also because they were confident America would win (Some were even crazy enough to advocate a preemptive strike against the Soviets!). But Sputnik launch made Americans understand that USSR was ahead in the technological race, and thus many began to think that if tensions between the two rivals ever escalated into a nuclear war, USA would most likely lose (even though American nuclear arsenal was considerably greater at that time). Belligerent rhetoric of Khrushchev and the Soviet leadership ("We will bury you.") didn't help things, either - on the contrary, everyone was now convinced them blasted Reds would attack any minute. This paranoia would continue for years and play a part in many great works of fiction (Dr. Strangelove not being the least of them).

Anyway, I've been a bit too verbose, but you get my point - ICBMs are integral to the nuclear scare of the 1950s and early 1960s, and therefore I feel they can add a lot to the Fallout setting if skillfully introduced.

I think this misses some point of Fallout's universe, really. Fallout, as I perceive it, was built on the positive Americana of the 50s, and to a much lesser extent the paranoia of the 50s and 60s. This is mainly reflected in the commercials you see around you and even the Vault-Tek ads for the Vaults, where you are shown that you can easily and happily live in a Vault and rebuild towns, even. Everything is permeated with positivity and good old American family values and I don't think that that befits the paranoid atmosphere you are portraying the pre-nuclear holocaust society of Fallout as.

Certainly, there was some paranoia, but not the paranoia of the post-Sputnik America. The common population of America also didn't really see it coming and didn't prepare for it, as the disaster in Bakersfield showed, or the relatively low capacity of vaults. This doesn't suggest a paranoid atmosphere, but more of a 'Eh, we could beat 'em!' atmosphere. So, no, I don't think that the paranoia created by the Sputnik launch fits the view of pre-apocalypse Fallout. Although we'd have to ask one of the original developers to be sure.

Also, Russia is wholly absent in Fallout.

True, and it's said somewhere that Glow was bombed a lot. It's a bit odd, the hole that was created by bombs is relatively small. Either the nuclear weapons in Fallout are inaccurate, or the West Tek facility was so heavily shielded it took a dozen or more nukes to bust it.

I'm not quite sure where it said that the Glow was bombed a lot, other than an in-game rumour to explain its high dose of radiation.

The small hole could've been created by being heavily shielded (which would seem to be the case, what with what seems to be reinforced concrete and steel beams sticking out in the creator) and hit from directly above. Or perhaps by a lot of area bombs that didn't get through the shielding, and a single bunker-buster. Or an extremely dirty bomb, detonated above the base and the shielding limiting the damage.

Eh, explanations enough.

Tsar Bomba (50 Mt), a real-life weapon tested in 1961, is the one that burns everything in a 100 km radius. It actually caused windows to break in Finland, a pretty impressive feat when you consider that it was detonated on Novaya Zemlya (by "windows" I of course mean windows on buildings, not the Microsoft operating system - those other Windows break just fine without the help of Tsar Bomba). If we agree that what Cassidy says is canon, and assume that blast radius is quadratically related to weapon yield (not sure how accurate that is), then a 5000 Mt bomb (presumably common in the Fallout universe) would have a ten times greater blast radius than Tsar Bomba, or 1000 km. In other words, such a bomb would lay waste to an entire country!

Of course, my "continent-buster" would need to be a hundred times more powerful than that.

Yep.
Oh, wait, I'd stop with the continent destroying bit...

I think it's safe to assume that GECK can't produce too many building blocks, nor does it need to. It just needs to churn out enough to build housing for a population of one Vault (no more than 1000 residents, except for that one overcrowded Vault).

'Not too many'?
Houses for 1000 residents is a *lot* of building material, Ratty.
I'd think it's safer to assume that the Vault is generally still used as living quarters while the outside is being prepared and houses are slowly erected.

If SP is right and even our technology allows us to make a 10 cm polymeric cube with just one gram of monomers, then I'm willing to accept that GECK can produce enough construction material for a small village with, say, a couple of hundred grams of raw monomers (presumably packed under great pressure, otherwise I don't know how they would fit into that small suitcase).

Am I the only who finds the comparing of mass one one hand to size on the other very, very scientifically unsound? The weight of the monomers is rather irrelevant if you don't know the volume of the monomers.

I'm not convinced it can replicate food, though. Soil, maybe, but food? That sounds a bit took Star Trek-y.

No, that's called Science! Ratty.
Besides, it's actually the only bit we do know for certain, seeing as how it's actually mentioned in the Fallout 1 manual.

 

[Vox]

Sander, what I see is that you abuse the word SCIENCE! a little bit. You explain certain totaly unplausible stuff with Science! but other stuff that rather makes sense get canceled out with the same word just for your purpose.

Vault City is, for Fallout standards, pretty far developed in it's total structure. They have neat houses, patics, roads.
The vault is only used as a hospital and for storage.
The GECK was invented for creating a livable habitat OUTSIDE the vault. Of course it can depend on certain causalities that the vault dwellers more or less rely on their vault, but the GECK 'should' provide everything what's necessary for a life outside.
Seeing chemicals that can clean the body of radiation in Fallout makes me think that the GECK was some sort of 'RAD AWAY FOR A SELECTED AREA'. Cleaning the soil of radiation. Soil analysis. Computerized suggestions on how to use the area in the most efficient way, etc... (the GECK definetly had electronics on it, therefore another point where Fallout hardware isn't as bulky as thought if you take all it's possible functions into consideration)

 

[Sander]

Sander, what I see is that you abuse the word SCIENCE! a little bit. You explain certain totaly unplausible stuff with Science! but other stuff that rather makes sense get canceled out with the same word just for your purpose.

Vault City is, for Fallout standards, pretty far developed in it's total structure. They have neat houses, patics, roads.
The vault is only used as a hospital and for storage.
The GECK was invented for creating a livable habitat OUTSIDE the vault. Of course it can depend on certain causalities that the vault dwellers more or less rely on their vault, but the GECK 'should' provide everything what's necessary for a life outside.
Seeing chemicals that can clean the body of radiation in Fallout makes me think that the GECK was some sort of 'RAD AWAY FOR A SELECTED AREA'. Cleaning the soil of radiation. Soil analysis.

Right, and you base this on what, exactly?
Yep, that's right, absolutely nothing. If you'd actually bothered to look at what we know about the GECK (namely that it replicates food and building blocks), you'd know that this is not an abuse of Science! for the Fallout setting.


I also don't see at all how this soil cleansing would contradict my claims, by the way.

Computerized suggestions on how to use the area in the most efficient way, etc... (the GECK definetly had electronics on it, therefore another point where Fallout hardware isn't as bulky as thought if you take all it's possible functions into consideration)

Ugh, no, Vox, you're wrong. The GECK still consists of vacuum tubes. And there are simply limits to the sizes vacuum tubing can get to.
Also, you're making ridiculous claims, since you don't even know what it does, let alone how and whether or not it would require electronics.

 

[Vox]

I just made my MOST REALISTIC suggetion about a GECK. It doesn't mean that it actually IS this way.

So if vacuum tubes are so limited, what may be, I'm not into such stuff, 90 % of Fallout must be considered as not only unrealistic, whats actually fine in games, but TOTALY IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Sander]

I just made my MOST REALISTIC suggetion about a GECK. It doesn't mean that it actually IS this way.

No, you thought of a solution and then decided that that's how it works without any basis in the games, really.

So if vacuum tubes are so limited, what may be, I'm not into such stuff, 90 % of Fallout must be considered as not only unrealistic, whats actually fine in games, but TOTALY IMPOSSIBLE.

No, Vox, that's not how it works. Vacuum tubes have size-limitations and transistors are almost non-existant in Fallout. And this is realistically reflected in every bit of in-game art and lore. Vacuum tubes are sticking out everywhere, computers are huge, storage is done using very large tape recorders. It all fits with the lore.

Please don't try to argue electronics with someone who actually knows how things work. It only makes you look stupid.

 

[zioburosky13]

I just made my MOST REALISTIC suggetion about a GECK. It doesn't mean that it actually IS this way.

So if vacuum tubes are so limited, what may be, I'm not into such stuff, 90 % of Fallout must be considered as not only unrealistic, whats actually fine in games, but TOTALY IMPOSSIBLE.

The science in Fallout world is a bit strange and unrealistic. Get use to it. Afterall it's a game where you can built a plasma rifle and shoot it 50 feet without burning yourself

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I think this misses some point of Fallout's universe, really. Fallout, as I perceive it, was built on the positive Americana of the 50s, and to a much lesser extent the paranoia of the 50s and 60s. This is mainly reflected in the commercials you see around you and even the Vault-Tek ads for the Vaults, where you are shown that you can easily and happily live in a Vault and rebuild towns, even. Everything is permeated with positivity and good old American family values and I don't think that that befits the paranoid atmosphere you are portraying the pre-nuclear holocaust society of Fallout as.

Certainly, there was some paranoia, but not the paranoia of the post-Sputnik America. The common population of America also didn't really see it coming and didn't prepare for it, as the disaster in Bakersfield showed, or the relatively low capacity of vaults. This doesn't suggest a paranoid atmosphere, but more of a 'Eh, we could beat 'em!' atmosphere. So, no, I don't think that the paranoia created by the Sputnik launch fits the view of pre-apocalypse Fallout. Although we'd have to ask one of the original developers to be sure.

Hm, you make a good point, but I'm not convinced. Main reason - Americans clung to their positive outlook even after the nuclear scare was taken to a new level with the Sputnik launch. Their attitude towards the war changed in sense that they became aware of its looming likelihood and acknowledged the fact that they might not win it, or at least that a victory would come at a tremendous cost. Yet even with such grim prospects their optimism didn't falter, as they seemed to believe that with proper preparations, their civilization and way of life could be quickly rebuilt after a nuclear war.

This typically American optimism in regard to a very grim issue is reflected in various fallout shelter ads and handbooks that were omnipresent in 1950s and 1960s. These materials typically show a happy American family enjoying the same comfort in their shelter as they enjoyed in their pre-war home, completely unperturbed with the nuclear carnage that's going on outside. For example, this handbook is from 1962, the year when nuclear scare approached its climax with the Cuban missile crisis, yet it's rife with exactly the same kind of light-heartedness that permeates the Vault-Tec ads in Fallout. It's because of this that I think Fallout is more inspired by late '50s and early '60s than by early-to-mid '50s.

The issues of ill-preparedness is reasonably easy to explain. First off, the reason why so many didn't respond to the sirens and take shelter in the Vault in time is because of the cry wolf effect. This effect inevitably begins to occur even after a few "false alarms". I can personally attest to that, as during the war in Croatia there was a period when air raid sirens sounded on an almost daily basis here in Zagreb. After nothing happened the first few times (or rather, nothing that put my family in immediate jeopardy), we just started to ignore them, even though we were very much aware there was a real war going on out there.

Secondly, Americans (real-life Americans, not Fallout Americans) were never properly prepared for a nuclear war, not even when tensions between USSR and USA were at their worst. Though press was full of ads for fallout shelters and other equipment that supposedly guaranteed survival, I'm pretty certain most Americans would still end up relying on the ol' Duck and Cover method if shit hit the fan. Public shelters, though solid protection against conventional air raids, were hopelessly inadequate against nukes, as they didn't stock nearly enough supplies for the number of people they were expected to house, nor did they even possess adequate air filtering. Obviously, they were never intended to save the population of America, but only to instill them with a false sense of security. The haphazard nature of the Vault project makes sense in light of that... or, if you go by what is revealed about Vaults in Fallout 2, they weren't even shelters to begin with, but a sinister social experiment under the guise of shelters.

Also, Russia is wholly absent in Fallout.

True, but it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that there is an evil enemy out there that could strike any minute.

 

[Vox]

Please don't try to argue electronics with someone who actually knows how things work. It only makes you look stupid.

You explain the impossible with Fallout's technological limitations.
Though it's limited it's so far developed (in certain aspects) that even we with our, compared to Fallout, superior computers are unable to achieve such standards.
But yeah... as someone "who actually knows how things work" you could explain me the invention of powered armours, fusion reactors, the connection of brains to machines etc. etc. etc. with something else but the word Science!.
It's like in THE SIMPSONS where the chick that plays Xena explains everywhing inexplainable with WIZARDS.

Edit:

Fallout also features retinal scanners. Biometric retina patterns were "found" in 1930s and there were even ways to work with that WITHOUT computers but the retinal scanner was invented in the 80s.
Computerizing such a procedure is pretty logical.
So even if shitty, Fallout computers evolved and became faster, and were eventually able to handle the tasks necessary to calculate retinal patterns.
So obviously Fallout features some technologies achieved in alternative ways.

 

[Brother None]

But yeah... as someone "who actually knows how things work" you could explain me the invention of powered armours, fusion reactors, the connection of brains to machines etc. etc. etc. with something else but the word Science!.
It's like in THE SIMPSONS where the chick that plays Xena explains everywhing inexplainable with WIZARDS.

Open question: did you ever see "Them!"? "The incredible shrinking man"? "Godzilla"?

 

[Vox]

Small stuf, big stuff giant stuff.

Yeah. Fine. I can't tell you much detail about the first 2 but Godzilla was "sort of watched" by me during the last 20 years or so.
And they always tried to explain shit with the current scientific standard.

So do you maybe mean that? That they also explain shit with the scientific standard of the 1950s in Fallout?