NationStates Jolt Archive

IC:

A chieftan MBT could be heard trundling past near by, its four crew members alert. They were on patrol around the large perimeter of Fort Blanx Military base. Inside the perimeter troops could be seen drilling, shooting or just doing normal day to day jobs, mostly all unaware of an important meeting taking place.

Under many tons of earth, in one of the securest locations in KDX, a large military Underground complex containing a small select group of officials, ambassadors and others from around the World. They were in the very centre of the complex, named Section 22, in a spacious room, and at the middle of that small crowd of people there was a table.

A tall man stood up from his dignified position at the head of the table.

“ Ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to have you here today. I am sorry about any security checks that had to take place, but we must follow current Protocol.

You are here today because The President, or should I say his Aides, have asked for you to be present at this important meeting about KDX and our Future as a greater nation. I have been given permission, told in fact, to immediately tell you some surprising news, that I’m sure none of you are expecting to hear. “ he took a short breath, quickly making an estimate of how many of the invited people were there, he could make out his superior, the secretary of state, David Cray, sitting at the back, looking up expectantly at him, even he didn’t know completely what this was about, only small rumours.

“ For several years now, under the Guidance of our three, and current, Presidents we as a nation have grown Significantly, and as more people come to our nation in search of a better life, our economy expands, our democracy strengthens and…our military grows. ”

“ Ladies and gentlemen, in the past KDX has apparently followed a strict anti WMD policy, including much of the chemical and biological weapons available that harm health of civilians and soldiers alike.

But, under this cover we have actually been working, for over five years now, on a Nuclear Program… “

There was a stunned silence, someone tried to mutter something but couldn’t, the Secretary of State looked shocked, he didn’t expect this!

“ I am sure you are all surprised, no-one else out of this room other than the people who developed this new capability for KDX know of it, the president has given full backing, we are not working as a rogue section.

What we have created is an atom bomb, slightly more powerful than the weapon used to destroy Hiroshima, but smaller and created with more modern techniques. We must also stress that we have done this on our own, and are very proud of it. Most nations can not hope to have our capabilities before they reach populations of 100million, which takes them decades, we have managed it in at least half the time!

Now I have given you those simple facts please take one of the small Booklets from one of the staff here, they give all the basic, non secret facts about the bomb, and we hope it will show to you how KDX is a very capable nations.

We shall return here in thirty minutes to give you time to read and discuss this meeting, when I shall return to take any questions.

Thank you Ladies and gentlemen, I shall see you soon. ”

With those last, calm words he departed, followed by two of his aides, one the scientist who invented the bomb, and another a military commander, at the rank of general, who was in command of the “ XMP ” department, Experimental Military Projects. It was she who had been in Command of the Atom Bomb project.

The Booklets vital information:
Weapon type: Atomic bomb (freefall)
Power: Equal to 22,000 Tons of TNT.
Estimated deaths (blast): 86,000-90,000, more in extremely heavily Built up areas.
Radioactive Poisoning: From the same, to Twice as many as from the Blast.
Other: There are several of the weapons in our Inventory Currently.
The First Bomb will be tested One hour after the start of the past meeting, by the time you have asked any questions and left news of this Bomb will be out around the world.

Pictures of the Bomb:
HERE (http://www.century20war.co.uk/bd500.jpg)

Expected blast if used:
HERE (http://www.unverse.com/images/Nagasaki.jpg)

Basic Plan:
HERE (http://www2.vo.lu/homepages/geko/atom/scheme.gif)

OOC: Pictures as in Booklets.

OOC: The Chietan Tanks used by KDX are upgraded, and classed a the KT version, with:

A more Powerful, reliable, Engine.

Higher Velocity 120mm main Gun, with Greater range and wider ammount of ammunition available.

New modern Gunery and tank systems, including new NBC protection suit.

Higher Speed.

Slightly Lower profile.

Applique and Reactive Armour added, newest Versions contain Built in reactive Armour.

No Ranging machine Gun.

Longer Range.

cool, i pay you 500 million dollars to make more of these

What delivery systems do you have in place or are planning to use if any for this weapon?

Official statement from Mondothian Ministry of international affairs:
Mondoth congratulates KDX and its people on the scientific Progress they have made in designing and building an atomic devise with out outside aid but we caution you not to use this most devastating of weapons in anger. Instead we urge you to use the knowledge gained to further your nations scientific research.
-Jennifer Williams (Minister of International Affairs)

(exerpted from HSI REPORT BATCH 005-2621V-CQI-M)

"...delivery system is adequate, if not imaginative. We could imagine this airdropped version to soon give way to an artillery version. Launch system programs are already underway (*see attached appendix C, photolog 6).

...has been placed on Tudrussel's positional observation listing, part of uploaded SOP-v 6.3.

... suggest an OVERVIEW satellite be allocated for observation; we do not see a need for a PANDORAS BOX or SUNSPOT at this time."



OOC: Welcome to the MAD leagues. ;)

(exerpted from HSI REPORT BATCH 005-2621V-CQI-M)

"...delivery system is adequate, if not imaginative. We could imagine this airdropped version to soon give way to an artillery version. Launch system programs are already underway (*see attached appendix C, photolog 6).

...has been placed on Tudrussel's positional observation listing, part of uploaded SOP-v 6.3.

... suggest an OVERVIEW satellite be allocated for observation; we do not see a need for a PANDORAS BOX or SUNSPOT at this time."



OOC: Welcome to the MAD leagues. ;)

Artilery might not be the best delivery, there has yet to be designed an artilery piece that can launch something farther than the effective blast radius of a strategic nuclear weapon, just saying

Artilery might not be the best delivery, there has yet to be designed an artilery piece that can launch something farther than the effective blast radius of a strategic nuclear weapon, just saying

OOC: ROFLMAO! Uhm... you are rather uninformed.

OOC: Vastiva, is indeed right in one of those rare occasions when he isn't flaming people... :P

You can use very small nukes, or non-nuclear bombs with the same power as said weapon from an artillery piece due to many of them having ranges of tens of miles/kilometres and the blast radius being relatively small comparitive to range.

I mean hell the US Military is working on Thermoptics last time I heard... a small artillery nuke is nothing in comparison.

Official Momanguise Governmental Responce

Erm....have fun with that.

Philip Henslowe,
Minister for Nucleur Non-Proliferation.

Official Communique from NSAA Royalist Government to the Government of KDX:

We are deploying one Asmodeus class sattelite to watch your Nuclear weapon development site, and urge you not to even consider attempting to use this or any similar weapon.

Message Ends.

OOC: i'm near-future tech, so ignore me if you're MT only.

And Ankhmet would like to warn you not to start anything with KDX.

A 22kt fission bomb? How primative.


Dr. Alexi Robinov
Everonian Ministry of Defense, Department of Nuclear Research

.. hmm interesting .. *is glad he has his ABM SDI systems and station *

Primitive but almost as affective as a thermonuclear ICBM

A 22kt fission bomb? How primative.


Dr. Alexi Robinov
Everonian Ministry of Defense, Department of Nuclear Research

OOC: Glad to see this response!

Was Hoping some N00b would come and say i can't have a nuke because ive got under 100mil pop...Am i the first to RP this properly?

Everonia- Absolutely, i love it! No need to worry, scientists are working on a 40Kt Version already! ;)

The Fedral Union- No need to have them just for me, :D.

IC: KDX is glad that such interest is being taken in our Nuclear Program, we look foward to working further to improve our capabilities, and work on missile Systems shall begin in the near future. At the Current time we are operating something that would be best Known as the V-2 Rocket, from the Fictionous World Called "Earth".

Official response:

"Welcome to the Glassmaker's Guild. We have T-shirts.
Seriously; Congratulations, use it wisely, and show restraint."

-Ministry of External Affairs.

IC: The Republic of Siap would like to congratulate you on your dvelopment, so long as you never poin that thing at us.

OOC: You say its a fission bomb, but you have the schematic of a thermonuclear bomb...

"We congratulate KDX on their entry into the nuclear community, and urge them to use this technology only for the benefit of their people, and to never fire their weapon in anger."

--Official Foreign Ministry Statement

Now be careful...don't use it too much...HEY!! You stole my fries! DIE! *hits red button and nukes random nation* Erm...have fun with that.

Now be careful...don't use it too much...HEY!! You stole my fries! DIE! *hits red button and nukes random nation* Erm...have fun with that.

OOC: NOOOO! We've been hit by a nuke and have no clue from whence it came!

OOC: Vastiva, is indeed right in one of those rare occasions when he isn't flaming people... :P

You can use very small nukes, or non-nuclear bombs with the same power as said weapon from an artillery piece due to many of them having ranges of tens of miles/kilometres and the blast radius being relatively small comparitive to range.

I mean hell the US Military is working on Thermoptics last time I heard... a small artillery nuke is nothing in comparison.

While that is true of tactical nuclear warheads, a 22kt bomb is not tactical, it's strategic, that means bigger boom, not practical for artillery use, and the bomb pictured is to big for tactical artillery anyway, you need a smaller warhead (which is more expensive and much much more complex, You need to have researched nuclear weapons for a while before you can even think about developing a tactical nuclear warhead)

OOC: For the record, Vastiva started in possession of nuclear free-fall bombs. But you have RP'ed it, and rather well.

We would also mention, firing a nuclear shell over a mountain range tends to be rather hard on the opposing force, and the mountains shield you from the effects. Nuclear Artillery at work.

IC: The Republic of Siap would like to congratulate you on your dvelopment, so long as you never poin that thing at us.

OOC: You say its a fission bomb, but you have the schematic of a thermonuclear bomb...

OOC: Ummm. sure, we have thermo nuclear weapons also...

Thanks for that, i'll try and get a Fission one sorted, i just saw that one and thought it looked cool...could i ask what the difference between thermonuclear and Fission is exactly? I get Fission but not ThermoNuclear really.

IC:

The future of KDX's Nuclear program is not known completely yet, although we are looking into new ways of delivering Nuclear Weapons.

In current Consideration are:

Further free fall weapons.
Guided Versions.
Smaller Fighter versions.

Nuclear Missiles(ICBMs), Primarily for use on Submarines. We are also looking into Putting small Warheads on Cruise Type Missiles, which we could produce in a shorter period of time than ICBMs and at a cheaper Price.

Mega Ton(s) Nuclear Weapons.
ThermoNuclear Weapons.
H bombs.

Artilery delivery systems.
a) From Current 203mm Guns.
b) From Battleships.

Warheads of smaller sizes are being looked into, with less power, for use in tactical situations.

Any aid would be accepted Greatfully. We would be willing to share results with the nation if they so chosse to aid us top further increase our knowledge of how to use such weapons.

While that is true of tactical nuclear warheads, a 22kt bomb is not tactical, it's strategic, that means bigger boom, not practical for artillery use, and the bomb pictured is to big for tactical artillery anyway, you need a smaller warhead (which is more expensive and much much more complex, You need to have researched nuclear weapons for a while before you can even think about developing a tactical nuclear warhead)

OOC: True, I was making the point that it is entirely possible.

OOC:Would like to point out that ICBMs on subs are not feasible... SLBMs are. The difference is SLBMs carry smaller warheads than ICBMs, have a shorter range, and have less accuracy.

OOC: Fusion is, quite literally, fusing two atoms together, releasing a massive amount of energy. A fission bomb works by using conventional explosives to make the uranium or plutonium really small (called critical mass) where the atoms split, releasing energy. A thermonuke has a fission bomb plus two isotopes of hydrogen (Deuterium and Tritium) which fuse into Helium. Afission bomb is included because fusion only occurs at extremely high temperatures.

OOC:Would like to point out that ICBMs on subs are not feasible... SLBMs are. The difference is SLBMs carry smaller warheads than ICBMs, have a shorter range, and have less accuracy.

SLBMs are sub launched missiles, why you couldmhave SLBMs version of ICBMs i dont see..

thanks for the info on fision and thermo bombs! its quite useful for me!

OOC:The biggest difference between SLBMs and ICBMs (other than size and launching platform) is range. The range of a Minuteman ICBM is usually 7,000-12,000 miles. A Trident SLBM on the other hand can only go 2,500 miles. This is do to the fact that SLBMs are smaller(due to the fact that they have to fit in a sub) and thus carry less fuel.

OOC: I may not need so many BM Subs then, i'll look into it when i build my first Subs so that i dont have to many in my navy, they cost quite a bit, lol.

OOC:The biggest difference between SLBMs and ICBMs (other than size and launching platform) is range. The range of a Minuteman ICBM is usually 7,000-12,000 miles. A Trident SLBM on the other hand can only go 2,500 miles. This is do to the fact that SLBMs are smaller(due to the fact that they have to fit in a sub) and thus carry less fuel.

OOC: Gee, this really depends on the fuel used, as well as launch mechanism. Ours, for example, go a good 8,000 miles and make large holes afterwards. Of course, that's the good ones. SLBMs are intended for "moving target" launch sites, that's it. And 212 SLBMs MIRV'ed is just going to ruin your day no matter how you look at it.

We prefer from a long distance, preferably orbit of a far away planet.

OOC:Well your future tech so I wont have to RP with you. Anyways... BM subs are VERY useful as once they are out to sea.... the only thing stopping them is ABMs. But if you use cruise missiles... hehehehehe.

Welecome to the world of nuclear weapons. As a sign of good will, I will offer you a point of advice which has helped us. When you reach the stage of thermonuclear testing, instead of using Plutonium for the secondary and tertiary tamper, use lead. This will create a much more efficient blast with less radioactive after effects, allowing for use of the territory with less clean up afterwards.


Commanding Officer of Special Weapons,
General Dr. Gilga Banada

OOC: Nuclear artillery shells are currently in service for NATO nations in 175mm and 203mm sizes, and in 203mm for Russia. And not too long ago they had 155mm/152mm rounds, but all of those have since been retired.
I am unsure what India and Pakistan have. But nucleary artillery have been a reality in warfare for a long time, just look at the American M110, or M107, which were designed to fire such nuclear shells.

OOC:Well your future tech so I wont have to RP with you. Anyways... BM subs are VERY useful as once they are out to sea.... the only thing stopping them is ABMs. But if you use cruise missiles... hehehehehe.

OOC: Nope. Modern to Post-Modern.

While that is true of tactical nuclear warheads, a 22kt bomb is not tactical, it's strategic, that means bigger boom, not practical for artillery use...

Hey, let's look at an artillery piece firing a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb a maximum of twenty miles in 1953!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ukgrabgun.jpg

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ukgrable3.jpg

Whoops, that blast didn't go anywhere near the gun, did it?

Despite the fact we have upgraded to weapons that vaporise rather than poison, we still only use the weapon as a last defence. Remember this, as nukes are merely a deterrant, not a weapon to be used in war.

Hey, let's look at an artillery piece firing a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb a maximum of twenty miles in 1953!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ukgrabgun.jpg

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ukgrable3.jpg

Whoops, that blast didn't go anywhere near the gun, did it?

OOC:

That's atomic annie right?

Hey, let's look at an artillery piece firing a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb a maximum of twenty miles in 1953!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ukgrabgun.jpg

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ukgrable3.jpg

Whoops, that blast didn't go anywhere near the gun, did it?

OOC: very nice, Nuclear Artilery looks very promising!

IC:

Message to: Dostanuot Loj
From: KDX Nuclear program Command

Sirs,

We thank you for your recent advise, we hope it will save us quite a bit of money in any future clean up operations. Your Help in our nuclear Program is very useful, any further aid would be very useful, we shall look to pass on anything we discover to yourselves by our relative Departments.

Good luck, John Ling, Primary Scientist, KDX (NRP)

Official Statement

We ask that the nation of KDX guard its nuclear secrets carefully, in order to discourage nuclear proliferation. While we are certainly not pleased that another nation has joined in the development of the nuclear weapon, we only ask that those who wield its power use it in a responsible manner and only as a last resort.

-Michael Howard
Soudinese President

GAH!, don't you people ever read an entire post before you counter it. and read up on your nuclear artilery as well. the difference between a 15 kt and a 22 kt nuclear weapon is 7 THOUSAND tons of explosive force, one is strategic (very big boom, use only with adult supervision, point away from self and other people before detonating) and the other is tactical (not so big boom, adult supervision recomended, keep away from small children)

and atomic annie was impractical for real military use for a few reasons I won;t go into here (unless you make me)

GAH!, don't you people ever read an entire post before you counter it. and read up on your nuclear artilery as well. the difference between a 15 kt and a 22 kt nuclear weapon is 7 THOUSAND tons of explosive force, one is strategic (very big boom, use only with adult supervision, point away from self and other people before detonating) and the other is tactical (not so big boom, adult supervision recomended, keep away from small children)

Oh wow, not seven thousand capital letters of force, spare us. I guess you're not aware that the only practical difference between a strategic and tactical weapon is intended use, not yield?

and atomic annie was impractical for real military use for a few reasons I won;t go into here

That's nice, so was the Sheridan tank. Care to explain how this renders all nuclear artillery useless, or should we surmise that the horrible Sheridan means we should write off all tanks as worthless?

and you are incapable of believing anyone but you is right, and your logical argument skills are rusty.
The difference between strategic and tactical nukes is indeed the intended use, but the above mentioned use also puts practical limitations on the yield used.
And I never said that all nuclear artillery was impractical, only atomic annie, other nuclear artillery pieces are very practical (scary thought), but none of them fire 22kt yield bombs. nor do any of them fire shells with the approximate physical dimensions of the weapon in KDX's picture.

and you are incapable of believing anyone but you is right, and your logical argument skills are rusty.
The difference between strategic and tactical nukes is indeed the intended use, but the above mentioned use also puts practical limitations on the yield used.
And I never said that all nuclear artillery was impractical, only atomic annie, other nuclear artillery pieces are very practical (scary thought), but none of them fire 22kt yield bombs. nor do any of them fire shells with the approximate physical dimensions of the weapon in KDX's picture.

OOC: *cough* Wrong.

OOC: *cough* Wrong.

I agree with the part about the picture in my first post, in fact that bomb had a larger yield than stated, but thats not the point.

im not sure about largest weapon used in nuclear artilery but when you look at it from the point that IOWA battleships had nuclear shells then it could well be possible to have higher yield weapons. After all a 16" shell is quite large round the belly!

Ohh, and heres a couple of pages about nuclear weapons:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382300

Very nice that, by one of us IIers!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Interesting info here.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

A very easy way to calculate Nuke blast effects, simple to use and it seems quite effective.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

A very easy way to calculate Nuke blast effects, simple to use and it seems quite effective.


This is only really effective for American style weapons. Unfortunatly, American weapons are neither the most advanced, nor the most efficient. Just the most numorous.

This is only really effective for American style weapons. Unfortunatly, American weapons are neither the most advanced, nor the most efficient. Just the most numorous.

Ahh, interesting, i still think its quite useful, mainly because i know of no other calculators.

What nation, then, has the most effective nukes? I'm no expert on this, i know more about tanks etc but my learning curve on nukes has been...significant.

One thing though, i think that China is slightly stupid with its nukes, it has weapons of large sizes, which is not as useful as several smaller ones with larger power to weight, meaning they are more wearth while as more can be produced+and are better if several can be produced. well, i think so at least, :rolleyes:

OOC: Honestly, you don't need efficient or advanced nukes to make rubble - lots of low yield warheads placed effectively will cause many times the damage of a single megabomb. And at a much lower cost in radioactives.

Ahh, interesting, i still think its quite useful, mainly because i know of no other calculators.

What nation, then, has the most effective nukes? I'm no expert on this, i know more about tanks etc but my learning curve on nukes has been...significant.

One thing though, i think that China is slightly stupid with its nukes, it has weapons of large sizes, which is not as useful as several smaller ones with larger power to weight, meaning they are more wearth while as more can be produced+and are better if several can be produced. well, i think so at least, :rolleyes:


OOC: Russia, believe it or not, has the most efficient nukes. But as Vastiva just said before me, you don't need efficient nukes to make rubble. Efficiency only really comes into play when you wanna use the land afterwards.
And large size weapons isn't nessicarily a bad way to go, espically when your target is a very heavily fortified structure. To analogise guns, 100 20mm bullets won;t do the same damage to 10ft thick concrete as a 1 155mm round.
You're thinking too conventionally when you say one big bomb is bad, and that's not good when you're dealing with unconventional weapons.

One word you should really acquaint yourself with when referring to how effective a nuclear attack can be:

Reflection


To destroy your analogy - one 155mm shell might destroy a piece of wall. Two hundred 20mm shells striking the same wall twenty billion times per second will make it into dust far more effectively.

At far less cost.

To destroy your analogy - one 155mm shell might destroy a piece of wall. Two hundred 20mm shells striking the same wall twenty billion times per second will make it into dust far more effectively.

At far less cost.

OOC:
Don't forget how much it costs to make all 200 20mm shells, and then how much it costs to deliver such firepower. So a single 155 would be much cheaper.
This is my point, a half dozen 200kt warheads deatonated around a bunker dug into a mountian will certianly do some damage, but it's not as likely to destroy the bunker and all occupants then a single 1mt deatonated right on the front door.
Multiple, low yeild, warheads are great, for killing bodies of people, cities, or groups of troops or ships. And that is generally what nations like the US aim for with their nukes. China, however, has the docterine of destroying deep enemy fortifications (Usually command centres) with their nukes, and then overrunning the enemy with ground troops in a conventional war.

Two different theories on the subject. The each have their own place, and you can sit here and bicker which is better all you like, but until you can provide evidence of a fullblown nuclear war that has proven either strategy better, there's no use bickering about it in the first place.

OOC:
Don't forget how much it costs to make all 200 20mm shells, and then how much it costs to deliver such firepower. So a single 155 would be much cheaper.
This is my point, a half dozen 200kt warheads deatonated around a bunker dug into a mountian will certianly do some damage, but it's not as likely to destroy the bunker and all occupants then a single 1mt deatonated right on the front door.
Multiple, low yeild, warheads are great, for killing bodies of people, cities, or groups of troops or ships. And that is generally what nations like the US aim for with their nukes. China, however, has the docterine of destroying deep enemy fortifications (Usually command centres) with their nukes, and then overrunning the enemy with ground troops in a conventional war.

Two different theories on the subject. The each have their own place, and you can sit here and bicker which is better all you like, but until you can provide evidence of a fullblown nuclear war that has proven either strategy better, there's no use bickering about it in the first place.

OOC:

Point of logic.

China fires its nukes, destroys deep bunkers.
US fires its nukes, destroys Chinese troop formations (and everything above ground)

World is now radioactive, no one won.

MAD.

See?

OOC:

Point of logic.

China fires its nukes, destroys deep bunkers.
US fires its nukes, destroys Chinese troop formations (and everything above ground)

World is now radioactive, no one won.

MAD.

See?

OOC:
Again you fail to see the point. The idea of a strategy is for a more limited scale. Everyone nowadays seems to have accecpted the MAD theory, but again, no major nuclear war to prove it's anything more then a theory.
I don't pretend to know why nations come up with nuclear strategy, possibly because the commonly accecpted theory of MAD is just a theory. And no government with any brains will place it's security on nothing more then a theory.

Nuclear warfare is a lot more complicated then "I nuke you, you nuke me, everyone dies."

OOC: Not for us its not. We'll gladly take you with us. You fire a nuke, and we'll fire ALL our nukes at you. Followed by several dozen of our friends glassing your remains. That's a pretty brutal strategy, but it works - there's no nation on the planet that can take that kind of hit, so we're left alone - nuclearly.

As for "limited nuclear exchange", there's nuclear artillery, cruise missiles, all sorts of goodies.

OOC: Not for us its not. We'll gladly take you with us. You fire a nuke, and we'll fire ALL our nukes at you. Followed by several dozen of our friends glassing your remains. That's a pretty brutal strategy, but it works - there's no nation on the planet that can take that kind of hit, so we're left alone - nuclearly.

As for "limited nuclear exchange", there's nuclear artillery, cruise missiles, all sorts of goodies.


OOC: And large bunker busters. See what I'm saying?

I'm not gonna get any further into real world nuclear tactics with you, since you seem to just be pulling stuff from the NS world in, where anything goes, and everyone is right all the time.
In the real world, the only proven nuclear weapon is the aircraft dropped bomb, because it's the only one that's ever been used in war. Whatever comes from NS on that, doesn't matter, because this is a fantasy game.

In the real world, the only proven nuclear weapon is the aircraft dropped bomb, because it's the only one that's ever been used in war. Whatever comes from NS on that, doesn't matter, because this is a fantasy game.

'Proven' spelled 'obsolete?' Who the hell would use a freefall air-deployed nuclear bomb anymore?

Warheads and their launch systems are proven in huge test programs, and claiming that ICBMs or other nuclear technology are not 'proven' just because nobody's blown up a city with one is, well, insane.

Look at the M1A1, when it was sent to Iraq it was very much a thory that it would work, sure it had been tested but fears that it would get stuck in sand aren't good. It had NEVER been combat tested before, smae goes for the HARRIER, that was proven in the Falklands war, how did the British know that the Argentinians wouldn't be able to cope(poor stratergy on their side primarily)? We knew the harrier could work though, it flew well enough, and the US knew their 120mm gun could take out T-72s, because it was MUCH more powerful than the merkavas 105mm gun, and that worked well against T-72s!

We had to be ready to lose ALL our planes, and our carriers, when you send in non combat tested planes you take a gamble, you don't know if the crew will be able to survive for sure, you don't know of any major weakspots that might be found, improvements after are made, but its not all theory before combat, ICBMs HAVE been tested, and some went wrong, missiles going off and making spectacular fireworks!

The point is, we KNOW a nuke will work, and we KNOW that lots of nukes in a wide area will spread out the damage, its not theory so much as something that WOULD happen. We can be sure that if a 22kt fission bomb worked well enough in destroying a city that a 500kt bomb would do MUCH more damage, over a wider area, with more deaths.

Its just as much common sense as science...theory for some of it, but known for a fact.