NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to the recent outbreak of hysteria here on II about nuclear weapons, I am resurrecting something I wrote a long time ago on the subject.

When you respond to this, please try to post something relevant to the subject. I would rather that this remain a civil discussion and not descend into the type of flaming and personal attacks we've seen too many of recently.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

In real life, everyone is terrified of using (everyone rational, that is) WMD. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, it's really tough to get it back in. This translates roughly into the fear that the quick and profligate use of WMD will inure world leaders to their use, and soon huge sections of the planet will be uninhabitable by anything other than rats and roaches.

In real life, chemical and biological weapons are almost entirely uncontrollable once they're released into the atmosphere. Chemical weapons in particular are very bad because they kill everything that breathes or has skin (depending on the chemical weapon used)- including insects used to pollinate crops, aerate soil, etc. This creates an ecological disaster that ruins the land for anyone's use. Furthermore, the chemically-destroyed landscape also acts as a barrier to any trace of normal traffic. Merely walking or driving across a chemical battlefield risks releasing the weapon into the air again. Forget about farming.

Bio-weapons have the potential for worse damage. There are two types of bio-weapons: Biological organisms that cause diseases (augmented by genetic modification or otherwise) and biotoxins.

Biotoxins are esssentially biologically-created chemical weapons. Many biological processes create toxic byproducts. It is possible to cheaply manufacture and disperse biotoxins. The downside is the fact that they are notoriously unreliable as a mass-weapon. Most biotoxins require that the toxin be ingested or injected- few are dangerous when inhaled unless enormous quantities are involved.

Biological organisms that cause disease have some of the same drawbacks as biotoxins. One of the very few bio-agents with a decent chance of infecting large numbers of people when used as a weapon is smallpox (there are lots of other deadly diseases, but very few of them make good WMD for a wide variety of reasons). Only a few organisms are needed to cause an infection, and then the infected people can spread the disease (becoming vectors for the disease spread) among the uninfected population.

Now we come to nuclear weapons. Nukes are actually pretty cheap- considering only their military usefulness compared to their development costs. The political consequences are pretty dire. Using nukes against an enemy invites retaliation in kind. Armies are hard to destroy effectively- even with nukes- but population centers don't move. They're easy to kill. In a world where everyone has nukes, the survival of continental populations are at the whims of whichever national leader is the least stable. If you start popping off nukes every time you feel peeved about buying a cheap Rolex knock-off, pretty soon:

A) no one will do business with you for any reason
B) anyone who is upset at you might do the same thing
C) anyone who thinks that you might be upset at them will be encouraged to launch a first strike
D) you'll probably find your seaports and major trucking/rail centers getting mysteriously vaporized until there's nothing left of your industry and commerce.
E) you'll encourage the formation of massive, nuclear-armed coalitions whose sole purpose will be to reduce your country to the world's largest glow-in-the-dark parking lot at the first sign of any possible conflict.

In short, using WMD is bad for business, and is a potential sign of mental laziness. The nations in real life which have massive stockpiles of CBR weapons (Chemical/Biological/Radiological) do so as a deterrent against other nations using their own WMD. Exactly two nuclear weapons have been used. Whether or not that use was justified I won't bother going into. There have been a few instances of chemical weapons used, but always in small lots (no one has loaded a missile with Sarin- for example- and launched it at enemy troops or cities). Most of the documented uses of chemical weapons since WWI have been dispersed from specially-equipped helicopters and other aircraft.

Bio-weapons have been in use for centuries (the Mongols hurled plague-infected animals into besieged cities, for example), but are growing far less effective from a military point of view. Part of this lack of effectiveness is due to the fact that everyone spies on everyone else, and if Nation A suddenly starts innoculating all of their troops against chicken pox, then everyone else is going to figure out that something is up (there is no practical way of hiding something like that). Another risk to using bioweapons is the distinct possibility of a meta-plague. Once released, there is no way to control the spread of the disease. The disease may mutate under the stress of ultraviolet light, radiation, or a wide variety of other causes. Now everyone is vulnerable- even the troops supposedly protected by their innoculations. All it takes is one human vector getting on an airplane. When the plane lands, there will be a hundred human vectors, some of whom will get on other planes- maybe even going to your country. Pretty soon, all that will be left is the few rare people who are naturally immune (there are always a few) and those populations that are somehow isolated from the rest of the planet.

So, if you want to develop WMD, feel free. Their best use is as a deterrent against total war. If you're losing the war badly, you can always threaten to use your WMD in the last extremity. Perhaps your enemy will be willing to offer terms under these circumstances ("I ain't gonna win, but we can both lose").


TEO

Nice to see some conventional wisdom, good job TEO.

TEO, minor correction: Exactly two nuclear weapons have been used in anger. There have been plenty of tests.

ICly, my nation sees all WMD as evil and does not possess any or permit research into the fields (except to counter their use and for nuclear power), nor allow passage of weapons or materials through our waters, airspace or land. It's much easier (not to mention safer overall) to use smart weapons than throw nukes around.

I would like to add that most delivery systems can be destroyed and if this happens you risk damaging your own forces

TEO, minor correction: Exactly two nuclear weapons have been used in anger. There have been plenty of tests.

Quite so. I should have used more precise language.

It's much easier (not to mention safer overall) to use smart weapons than throw nukes around.


I agree completely. In particular, the profligate use of nukes (for example) often denotes someone who is unable or unwilling to roleplay a conventional conflict. RPing conventional warfare requires a certain amount of geek-ish dedication. Players who excel at conventional warfare RPs routinely spend a great deal of time researching the various strengths and weaknesses of different equipment, sensors, countermeasures, etc. Players who are unwilling to devote the time and energy that this material requires are at risk of losing the technological edge over potential opponents. Since many of us have frequent and time-intensive intrusions of real life into our game time, not everyone is willing and able to descend into nerdvana by researching new and better military technologies. These players can be excellent writers, and their RPs are often well-crafted, but they might be less likely to RP major conflicts as a result. Nations which have less than stellar conventional weapons capabilities might be tempted to use WMDs as technological "equalizers".

IC, the Overlord disdains the use of nuclear weapons and other WMD, and dislikes other nations who do use them. That said, the Dominion has an extensive arsenal of WMD ... and countermeasures to match.


TEO

I would like to add that most delivery systems can be destroyed and if this happens you risk damaging your own forces

I assume that you refer to chemical and biological weapons delivery sytems. This is true, and another good reason to avoid the use of such weapons. An attempt to launch a cruise missile loaded with VX at a concentration of enemy troops (for example) would be subject to the same countermeasures as a conventional cruise missile (after all, the defenders would not know the difference). Most of those countermeasures would result in the premature dispersal of the toxin onboard. This could easily result in your own troops (or civilian population) getting exposed to the gas. Ditto for biological weapons.

Shooting down nuclear-tipped missiles in this manner is less likely to result in premature detonation of the warhead. Nuclear weapons are fairly complicated bits of apparatus. It is relatively easy to prevent a nuke from achieving critical mass. Overload the ignition circuitry, deform the subcritical masses, or just damage the conventional explosives which start the fission process, and you've prevented a fission weapon from exploding (it would still be a major environmental hazard, but not a tremendous, Earth-shattering, KABOOM!). Since fusion weapons (also called thermonuclear or H-bombs) rely on an initial fission reaction to get them started, all of these methods would work against them as well.


TEO

You mean to tell me that this is a normal occurence?

I'd like to add that what my nation is currently doing is deterrence. I've not nuked Feline into the ground, and I don't intend to. I'm aiming ICBMs at him so that he knows that if he shoots them at me, He's getting nuked in return. Hence, deterrence: You shoot at me, I shoot back. You don't shoot at me, and everyone goes home to their families.

Granted... the current situation is a tad more complicated than that, what with them claiming international waters, and me violating what some nations recognize as sovereign terrirory, but still. I don't intend to fire. I don't think FC does, either, because of what would happen.

Ah, but you guys forget a potential use of WMDs. They can be very effective at controlling a populace, if you happen to be an evil dictator.The gassing of the Kurds is a good example.

In my first post, I mentioned that nuclear weapons are relatively cheap. This refers mainly to their military effectiveness vs their cost. To achieve the equivalent destruction as a tactical nuke, you would have to have several thousand conventional weapons (and their delivery systems). A nuke is therefore fairly cheap- from a military point of view.

More realistically, nukes are hideously expensive to the nation that builds them. Acquiring and refining the fissile material is a major undertaking in and of itself. Working out the technical tricks that make nukes go BOOM instead of creating an environmental nightmare is another expensive hurdle the nation must overcome. Maintaining the plants and technological base with which to develop new weapons is a major drain on a nation's resources. Developing a militarily effective delivery system is yet another. Carrying nukes on WWI-era biplanes is easily possible- but militarily worthless. Using RL military technology as a guide, the best delivery systems here-and-now are guided missiles. These are neither easy nor cheap to make- especially if you plan on having anything resembling accuracy.

I can hear a lot of players out there saying, "Accuracy? With nukes? Who cares?" Yes, Virginia. Accurate nukes are better than inaccurate ones. Why? To deal with hardened nuclear silos, for example. The closer the blast is to the target, the more likely it is that the target will be destroyed- even if the target is protected by meters of reinforced concrete. The US managed to get the CEP (Circular Error Probablility) of their ICBMs down to a matter of a few meters during the Cold War. This reportedly had the Soviets extremely worried, since they had spent billions building hardened missile silos to withstand near-misses (The USSR's response to this threat was to build lots of mobile missile launchers). The CEP for Soviet ICBMs, by comparison, was usually better than a kilometer. This is one reason the USSR spent so much time and effort building megaton-yield warheads. "Build the bombs big enough, and you don't have to be accurate" was the thinking.

There are other problems regarding nuclear weapons. Testing and maintenance. You need a lot of empty space available to test a nuke. It has to be available for up to several thousand years, because it won't be good for much of anything for a long time. Above ground testing will lay waste to enormous swaths of territory, as well as generating Electro-Magnetic Pulses (EMPs) which will fry every electronic circuit within a wide radius. The area downwind of above-ground testing tends to be slightly unhealthy, too. With good computers and sensors, you could do your testing below ground. This is a lot less damaging to the environment, but only by comparison with above ground testing. It will elimate EMP damage and fallout (for the most part), however.

Now we come to maintenance. Fissile material in nukes emits radiation. Shielding for nuclear weapons is relatively light, so the area around the warheads is going to be unhealthy to work in after a fairly short period of time. Worse, large masses of fissile materials generate a lot of heat. This heat can cause stresses in the warhead casings, which can result in the weapon not functioning when you really need it- in addition to the increased radiation leakage. Fusion bombs are even worse. Fusion bombs use Tritium, a form of hydrogen. Tritium ceases to be useful after a fairly short time in a nuclear weapon. The gas will need to be removed (a dangerous procedure) and replaced with more (ditto). The waste material will also have to be disposed of (both dangerous and expensive).

A nation with nukes will have to spend a lot of time and effort (and money) keeping their arsenal functional. The equivalent destructive power in conventional explosives is far bulkier, but less expensive in the long run.


TEO

That's why we stick to conventional high-explosive or HE Napalm-packed rockets. Depending on the risks of being shot down, we have a lot of armor on our rockets that will slowly lose its armor as it nears its target and then it explodes once it hits. The napalm missiles can actually stop troop movement. Target where they're going and you can cause large fires that will prevent them from going through. Hit them in the middle of their formation and the rest of their troops behind those can't move.

That's why we stick to conventional high-explosive or HE Napalm-packed rockets. Depending on the risks of being shot down, we have a lot of armor on our rockets that will slowly lose its armor as it nears its target and then it explodes once it hits. The napalm missiles can actually stop troop movement. Target where they're going and you can cause large fires that will prevent them from going through. Hit them in the middle of their formation and the rest of their troops behind those can't move.

...provided napalm will stop them.

Ah, but you guys forget a potential use of WMDs. They can be very effective at controlling a populace, if you happen to be an evil dictator.The gassing of the Kurds is a good example.

Let us discuss chemical weapons, since they were used in your chosen example.

Chemical agents (Nerve, Blister, and Blood agents) have to be delivered in fairly concentrated form to be militarily effective. In your chosen example, the Iraqi military used aircraft equipped with sprayers to deliver the toxin in lethal levels. The aircraft had to make several passes at low level to achieve the proper level of exposure. Can you imagine doing this successfully against an enemy equipped with modern weapons? If those Kurds had possessed any of several man-portable air defense weapons, the slaughter would never have taken place. If a strong wind had suddenly begun blowing, the casualties would have been dramatically reduced. All chemical agents require significant concentration to be lethal. This is not to say that they are useless in combat.

During WWI, gas attacks were almost always carried out by means of large-caliber artillery rounds. Very few of these attacks were militarily successful, especially since both sides quickly developed functional gas masks. The main reason few gas attacks worked was the difficulty in creating gas clouds of sufficient duration and density to kill. In modern warfare, there are unlikely to be any direct casualties from a chemical weapons attack on a prepared enemy. What the attack will do, however, is force the enemy (and your troops as well) to fight wearing cumbersome protective equipment. The problem is, this cuts both ways. Everyone in the vicinity of a chemical weapons attack will be forced to wear protective equipment or risk dropping dead if the wind changes.

Now let us discuss the basic categories of chemical weapons: Nerve agents, Blister agents, and Blood agents.

Most nerve agents were developed from agricultural pesticides (hence the collective interest in "agricultural research stations" among the world's intelligence services). They function by inhibiting the signals in the victim's nervous system. In order to function, the toxin must get past the body's natural first line of defense- the skin. Introduced as an aerosol (the most militarily effective method), the most common means of exposure is through the lungs, the eyes, and other mucous membranes. Any damage to the integrity of the skin (like a shaving cut, or a wound), will also allow the agent to work. To prevent exposure, wearing any of several varieties of filter masks will work nicely, as well as avoiding direct contact with the aerosol affected areas. In the event that you are exposed to nerve agents, you can inject Atropine into any major muscle group such as the thighs (not into the heart- forget everything you've ever "learned" on the subject from Hollyweird). Atropine speeds up your metabolism, which counters the effects of most nerve agents. It isn't comfortable, but you'll probably survive- if you get the dose of Atropine quickly enough.

Blister agents attack the skin. They cause huge blisters to appear on any exposed tissue. Blister agents are not necessarily fatal, but they will definitely incapacitate anyone whose skin has been exposed. Unlike nerve agents, blister agents do not need to be inhaled. Death, though infrequent, is caused by shock, dehydration, and secondary infections. First aid for exposure is to remove the toxin from the skin with activated charcoal- among other methods. This will not prevent damage from the agent, but will minimize the severity of the exposure.

Blood agents attack the blood- specifically the oxygen-transfer properties of the blood. Like nerve agents, blister agents must be ingested or inhaled. There is no effective first aid for blood agent exposure, but victims often survive after receiving prompt medical attention. Prevention of exposure is the best means of avoiding this type of agent.

Note that getting exposed to a few molecules of any given agent is unlikely to be harmful- much less fatal. Lethal exposures require prolonged contact or considerable density of the aerosol cloud- or both. Many common countermeasures exist to prevent or reduce exposure to any of these agents. The equipment issued to military personnel is the best, mainly because it is usually better made, extensively tested, and has considerable longevity during exposure.

BTW, there is one more category of chemical weapon I haven't covered: Irritants. Common examples include CS (tear gas) and Capsaicin (pepper spray). Irritants are (usually) non-lethal chemical weapons which are designed to make the victim profoundly uncomfortable or incapacitated. These need not be inhaled (usually) to be effective- although inhalation works as well. Contact with the eyes is often enough for the victim to get the full effect (especially with Capsaicin).


TEO

That's why we stick to conventional high-explosive or HE Napalm-packed rockets. Depending on the risks of being shot down, we have a lot of armor on our rockets that will slowly lose its armor as it nears its target and then it explodes once it hits. The napalm missiles can actually stop troop movement. Target where they're going and you can cause large fires that will prevent them from going through. Hit them in the middle of their formation and the rest of their troops behind those can't move.

The problem is, napalm and other incendiaries will not stop armored vehicles. Tanks and similar vehicles can roll right through a napalmed area. As long as they keep moving, the tanks will be largely undamaged by the attack.


TEO

You left out chemical weapons. And that no one can control the wind. You might want to attack your enemy with your bio or chem weapon only to have the wind suddenly shift direction and start blowing it back in your face.
Also, weather affects the effectiveness of such weapons.

Nice job man, I'm definately reading this when I have the time. [tag]

My policy is to not use them unless my nation has been invaded by foreign troops and I am losing a war. I used to have a policy that they would be used if allies were attacked with them but now I protect said allies with Pandora's Box anti nuke system.
The presence of my own arsenal and my threat to use them in the event of foreign invasion has pretty much given would be invaders of my nation pause. It is an effective deterrent.

About the tritium in fusion weapons.
Not only is it's half-life extremely short (12.3 years), it decays into Helium-3, which is murder on the initial fission reaction, since it absorbs neutrons.
For example, a 70KT fission primary for a 450KT fusion device, can be reduced to between 10-15KT total yield, with only a fifth of the tritium having decayed into Helium-3.

This means that the tritium requires regular replacement, and since it is the most expensive substance on the planet (that you can actually get at least), this becomes a major expense if you plan on stocking large numbers of fusion warheads.

Now ya see, this is why TIN decided to develop it's own versions of WMD's that have no alterations to the environment-so we started to research Energy WMD's instead. Of course i'm FT so this probably doesn't matter.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/united_nations.jpg United Nations Footnote on WMDs

The United Nations has passed the following resolutions pertaining to weapons of mass destruction:

United Nations Resolution #16: Elimination of Bio Weapons

Biological weapons, if used during warfare or covertly, represent an enormous risk to the well-being of not just the target of said weapons, but potentially everyone on the planet. It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons.United Nations Resolution #107: Ban Chemical Weapons

The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.
For a discussion of the implementation and circumvention of these resolutions, I would refer people to Ban Chemical Weapons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423855) in the United Nations Forum. And of course, these resolutions do not apply to nations that are not members of the United Nations.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Nukes are bad, yes, but you're forgetting something very important that the government has yet to try, KEW, they have no radiological side effects and are as powerful as nukes, all you do is drop a big enough rock from high enough up, and boom, no more city\state\nation, depending on the size of the item dropped, the distance it falls, and the composition of the item in question.

A satelite could take out DC, a properly guided KEW of the proper size could take out TEXAS, and it wouldn't have to be as large as you probably think, since all of the items kinetic energy from the fall gets turned into explosive force upon impact.

A penetrator's energy may be great, but in reality you'll find the claim of "destroying an area the size of Texas" is rather speculation rather than a possibility. As a general-purpose "destruction weapon", it is indeed powerful, though there is also a high cost; however, it'd work excellently as a weapon against bunkers and fortifications.

A penetrator's energy may be great, but in reality you'll find the claim of "destroying an area the size of Texas" is rather speculation rather than a possibility. As a general-purpose "destruction weapon", it is indeed powerful, though there is also a high cost; however, it'd work excellently as a weapon against bunkers and fortifications.


If you make a big enough KEW it'll take out north america, sure it'd be something the size of VA, but it could be done(think Armageddon and the asteroids), and something to take out texas would only have to be the size of oh, say, a carrier or battleship, not thast big really... ;)

http://www.nationstates.net/images/united_nations.jpg United Nations Footnote on WMDs

The United Nations has passed the following resolutions pertaining to weapons of mass destruction:


For a discussion of the implementation and circumvention of these resolutions, I would refer people to Ban Chemical Weapons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423855) in the United Nations Forum. And of course, these resolutions do not apply to nations that are not members of the United Nations.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Noting that the UN is full of pansies and liberals, most nations willing to use nukes and such are not in the UN.

If you make a big enough KEW it'll take out north america, sure it'd be something the size of VA, but it could be done(think Armageddon and the asteroids), and something to take out texas would only have to be the size of oh, say, a carrier or battleship, not thast big really... ;)
You'll find that an asteroid will have not only a different set of characteristics, but also a much greater size, and consequently, energy. Thus, though a small penetrator fired from orbit will definately make a lot of damage, it is nowhere near the scale you describe - heck, even nukes can't wipe out the entire state of Texas with one hit. If you plan to deploy penetrators the size of a battleship however, good luck, though the scale will be so massive that you'll be bankrupt if you deploy even more than one of these.

Very helpful, The Evil Overlord.

A satelite could take out DC KE = 1/2 mv^2.

Satellite weight of, say, 5 tons (Very heavy, in fact, exceptionally heavy), velocity of about 17 km/s (Typical asteorid velocity, which is significantly faster than what a satellite would actually manage when descending upon earth, since it would be slower than escape velocity (Slightly less than 12 km/s) give you about 42 megajoules of energy. That's about four shots from a MBT main gun.

And this is disregarding the loss of velocity (And thus, kinetic energy) due to friction in the atmosphere and the tendency of smaller objects to burn in the atmosphere.

Now... Care to point me to where a single MBT destroyed a city the size of Washington DC by way of firing four shots with its main gun?

You'll find that an asteroid will have not only a different set of characteristics, but also a much greater size, and consequently, energy. Thus, though a small penetrator fired from orbit will definately make a lot of damage, it is nowhere near the scale you describe - heck, even nukes can't wipe out the entire state of Texas with one hit. If you plan to deploy penetrators the size of a battleship however, good luck, though the scale will be so massive that you'll be bankrupt if you deploy even more than one of these.

It is perfectly possible, even back in the 1970's or 1980's.

1. Send several probes to map out the asteroid belt.
2. Find a suitable "Dino-Killer" asteroid.
3. Send either a manned or un-manned mission to that particular asteroid.
4. Stick large rocket boosters on the asteroid.
5. Launch the asteroid to Lunar Orbit.
6. Work on the asteroid and aim it at your enemy's territory.

Presto, you have a single nation-wide "obliteration" WMD.

Hell, this is even better and more terrifying than nukes. You would have an extremely hard time shooting down 1+ mile wide asteroids with SDI and ABM systems.

Hey, I think I just may have found my alternative WMD from my biological weapons discussion thread. I can drop biological, chemical, and nuke weapons in favor of "apocalypse" type WMD, namely our pal the Asteroid. :p

Presto, you have a single nation-wide "obliteration" WMD.
Things like that are much more easier said than done. Unfortunately, the scientific complexity behind this will hinder the possibility to the point where it isn't even a remote possibility in practice.

What about Orbital Weapon plattforms, a well planned doomsday laser can spell trouble you know.

It is perfectly possible, even back in the 1970's or 1980's.No it isn't.

1. Send several probes to map out the asteroid belt.
2. Find a suitable "Dino-Killer" asteroid.
3. Send either a manned or un-manned mission to that particular asteroid.
4. Stick large rocket boosters on the asteroid.
5. Launch the asteroid to Lunar Orbit.
6. Work on the asteroid and aim it at your enemy's territory.1. Works. Kinda.
2. Works, too.
3. That works as well. Hey, a good start. But...
4. You need to carry those with you. And now, the question. You know why planet-slingshooting and the likes exist? Because carrying fuel with you, in space, is expensive and a very serious problem. Any kind of chemical thruster will run out of fuel within minutes (And this is assuming that you carry a few billion tons of chemical fuel with you. Modern rockets carry slightly less). Any kind of Ion/ Plasma thruster will give you so much acceleration that, well... A hundredth of a millimetre per second squared isn't terribly impressive. The whole installation process is... Ludicrously hard (Given that asteorids do not tend to have perfectly formed orifices/ surfaces you can stick engines, life support and the likes on).

Incidentally, by now you have spend your nations' entire GDP for the next thousand years on the project. And I mean NSsized nations with NS growth rates, not RL ones (Admittedly, I'm also assuming NS' stagnant technology).

5. and 6. become kinda irrelevant, considering this (I would note that an asteorid isn't particularly easy to aim, though. Especially not this size).

EXCEPT of course that you can explain how you carry rather largish construction crews, technological equipment, a few billion tons of fuel and the likes to the belt (Using modern/ pre-modern (Read: seventies/ eighties) stuff like, say, space shuttle, ariane), stay there for a few years (A decade), pull the whole thing off (Without having tested it beforehand, nothing to test it on), finance all of this and... Yeah.

What about Orbital Weapon plattforms, a well planned doomsday laser can spell trouble you know.Uh, no, it can't. Well planned Doomsday lasers don't exist, since good planning recognises doomsday lasers as a rather stupid idea. Has to do with efficiency, cost/ benefit analysis, the tendency of lasers not to work omnidirectional (Exactly the opposite of what a doomsday weapon is supposed to do), energy requirements, engineers not being slightly demented Star Wars fanboys, the likes.

No it isn't.

1. Works. Kinda.
2. Works, too.
3. That works as well. Hey, a good start. But...
4. You need to carry those with you. And now, the question. You know why planet-slingshooting and the likes exist? Because carrying fuel with you, in space, is expensive and a very serious problem. Any kind of chemical thruster will run out of fuel within minutes (And this is assuming that you carry a few billion tons of chemical fuel with you. Modern rockets carry slightly less). Any kind of Ion/ Plasma thruster will give you so much acceleration that, well... A hundredth of a millimetre per second squared isn't terribly impressive. The whole installation process is... Ludicrously hard (Given that asteorids do not tend to have perfectly formed orifices/ surfaces you can stick engines, life support and the likes on).

Incidentally, by now you have spend your nations' entire GDP for the next thousand years on the project. And I mean NSsized nations with NS growth rates, not RL ones (Admittedly, I'm also assuming NS' stagnant technology).

5. and 6. become kinda irrelevant, considering this (I would note that an asteorid isn't particularly easy to aim, though. Especially not this size).

EXCEPT of course that you can explain how you carry rather largish construction crews, technological equipment, a few billion tons of fuel and the likes to the belt (Using modern/ pre-modern (Read: seventies/ eighties) stuff like, say, space shuttle, ariane), stay there for a few years (A decade), pull the whole thing off (Without having tested it beforehand, nothing to test it on), finance all of this and... Yeah.

Okay, I think I have possible solutions to these problems. Lets pick at #4 step from my list and go from there.

#4 Solution #1: I can construct a somewhat large spaceship, sorta like an extra-large sized gas rocket (the big fat orange rocket that the space shuttle rests on during launch from Earth). I can hook up several large booster rockets to that spaceship. Then launch that spaceship at the suitable asteroid.

#4 Solution #2: I can implement nuclear energy and employ it into thrusters and energy needs. I can employ centrifugal force to create gravity, by spinning the spaceship.

Either way, we arrive at the asteroid, and then begin the installation process. I can drill holes into the asteroid, then insert the rockets inside them, it'd be similiar to shoving a small rocket inside a bowling ball's "finger holes" and let er' rip. With asteroids, I can install these rockets in strategic places drilled into the asteroid, and the rockets can fire independently of each other to maintain stability during the transit back to Earth (actually, Luna / Moon's orbit).

If these rocket boosters are too ineffective, I could also go for using controlled nuclear explosions to generate the power / thrust needed to propel a large asteroid.


I don't see it costing $1,000 trillion dollars to do. I can see it costing anywhere between $10 - 30 trillion to implement.

It is perfectly possible, even back in the 1970's or 1980's.

1. Send several probes to map out the asteroid belt.
2. Find a suitable "Dino-Killer" asteroid.
3. Send either a manned or un-manned mission to that particular asteroid.
4. Stick large rocket boosters on the asteroid.
5. Launch the asteroid to Lunar Orbit.
6. Work on the asteroid and aim it at your enemy's territory.

Presto, you have a single nation-wide "obliteration" WMD.

Hell, this is even better and more terrifying than nukes. You would have an extremely hard time shooting down 1+ mile wide asteroids with SDI and ABM systems.

Hey, I think I just may have found my alternative WMD from my biological weapons discussion thread. I can drop biological, chemical, and nuke weapons in favor of "apocalypse" type WMD, namely our pal the Asteroid. :p
Wouldnt the offended party simply nuke you in anticipation of being asteroided by you when your space mission returns in about 5 years' time?

You know, there are asteroids that are close to earth... why do you think the moon has all those craters?

I'm not sure how many near earth asteroids have the energy to cause the level of destruction you're talking about, there are bound to be some. It would simplify the process multiplefold.

You know, there are asteroids that are close to earth... why do you think the moon has all those craters? It doesn't go into the asteroid belt. Though I'm not sure how many near earth asteroids have the energy to cause the level of destruction you're talking about, there are bound to be some. It would simplify the process multiplefold.
Most of the asteroids that hit the moon were flung out of the asteroid belt by Jupiter (IIRC)'s gravity. They werent just random asteroids that were floating around they were in an orbit which was then distrubed, leading to collision.

Wouldnt the offended party simply nuke you in anticipation of being asteroided by you when your space mission returns in about 5 years' time?

Two points.

1. I am not currently at war with anyone, nor am planning any aggressive war-mongering any time soon (unless something really ridiclious happens like n00bs like Seph or such).

2. If confronted about my asteroid, I can simply claim "It is an scientific endeavour" or "It is a scientific experiment in deep space travel". Plausible deniability.

No, I assure you, there are near earth asteroids that are just floating out there, that have been captured by earth's gravity.

I'd provide a link, but I don't have much time, right now.

I don't see it costing $1,000 trillion dollars to do. I can see it costing anywhere between $10 - 30 trillion to implement.
And in the end, nearly spending out all your defence budget, and in turn making this whole asteriod weaponization endeavour counterproductive?

#4 Solution #1: I can construct a somewhat large spaceship, sorta like an extra-large sized gas rocket (the big fat orange rocket that the space shuttle rests on during launch from Earth). I can hook up several large booster rockets to that spaceship. Then launch that spaceship at the suitable asteroid.

#4 Solution #2: I can implement nuclear energy and employ it into thrusters and energy needs. I can employ centrifugal force to create gravity, by spinning the spaceship.#1: Nope. You still have the same transport problem (And this is *not* possible in 1970s/ 1980s). Oh, and... #2 and the space shuttle booster rocket wouldn't be enough. Try the weight of the spaceshuttle, scale up to the weight of the asteorid, increase the size of the rocket appropriately. Make it a thousand times bigger since you will require a longer boost. Remember that you will need to burn fuel just to transport fuel. Increase size (I'm always referring to size as volume and thus weight, not length) by another order of magnitude.

THEN you're close.

#2: Certainly. Just... This helps you... How?

EDIT: and before I forget it...

If these rocket boosters are too ineffective, I could also go for using controlled nuclear explosions to generate the power / thrust needed to propel a large asteroid.And why not just dropping the nukes on the opponent on Earth? would be cheaper... (And a lot of other, positive things)

Two points.

1. I am not currently at war with anyone, nor am planning any aggressive war-mongering any time soon (unless something really ridiclious happens like n00bs like Seph or such).

2. If confronted about my asteroid, I can simply claim "It is an scientific endeavour" or "It is a scientific experiment in deep space travel". Plausible deniability.
1) What relevance does this have to anything? We're discussing a useful alternative to WMDs, not discuss what you're going to do RIGHT NOW.

2) And these people (who you are presumably in a state of total war with, if you're planning to destroy their entire civilisation) will just accept that? And they wont notice when you start pulling an ansteroid back to earth? And what will they be doing in the mea-time anyway? Just sitting there waiting?

And in the end, nearly spending out all your defence budget, and in turn making this whole asteriod weaponization endeavour counterproductive?

If we're going by Der Angst's declaration that we'd be using NS economy and stats....

My defense budget is $12 trillion, I believe. In addition, this mission would take anywhere between 5 - 20 years to do. I can split up my budget into small increments... Say, $2 trillion per year. I think that could do it.

2 trillion for 5 years = $10 trillion.
2 trillion for 20 years = $40 trillion.

Pretty reasonable, yeah? I'll still have $10 trillion for other uses annually, like army, navy, homeland defense, etc.

Uh, no, it can't. Well planned Doomsday lasers don't exist, since good planning recognises doomsday lasers as a rather stupid idea. Has to do with efficiency, cost/ benefit analysis, the tendency of lasers not to work omnidirectional (Exactly the opposite of what a doomsday weapon is supposed to do), energy requirements, engineers not being slightly demented Star Wars fanboys, the likes.

But it has plenty of firepower. One blast and the area you want destroyed is wiped out.

My defense budget is $12 trillion, I believe. In addition, this mission would take anywhere between 5 - 20 years to do. I can split up my budget into small increments... Say, $2 trillion per year. I think that could do it.

...and you are saying that you are going to call this a "scientific endeavour"? How can you expect people to still believe this as a "scientific endeavour" if your military is spending a huge portion of their defence budget for a period of time such as twenty years, exclusively, on this project? Certainly, an intelligent human being would be able to realize that this would be something beyond simply being a "scientific endeavour".

#1: Nope. You still have the same transport problem (And this is *not* possible in 1970s/ 1980s). Oh, and... #2 and the space shuttle booster rocket wouldn't be enough. Try the weight of the spaceshuttle, scale up to the weight of the asteorid, increase the size of the rocket appropriately. Make it a thousand times bigger since you will require a longer boost. Remember that you will need to burn fuel just to transport fuel. Increase size (I'm always referring to size as volume and thus weight, not length) by another order of magnitude.

THEN you're close.

The tech is already there, and has been there since the 1970's - 1980's. We have demostrated the capability to launch men to the moon, and have men actually walk on non-terrestrial surfaces. Men have also been working in zero-gravity enviroment for 20 - 30 years, known as EVA or space-walks to maintain satellites, space stations, and space shuttles.

If we can send men to the moon, then it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that we could send men to Mars or the asteroid belt just beyond it.

Now, the only problem I see is how to implement these "already-established" technologies towards hauling an asteroid back to Earth.

#2: Certainly. Just... This helps you... How?

EDIT: and before I forget it...

And why not just dropping the nukes on the opponent on Earth? would be cheaper... (And a lot of other, positive things)

I can use the shockwaves from the nuclear detonations to "push" the asteroid forward. IIRC, NASA looked at those possibilities with nuclear explosions to divert potential Extinction Level asteroids away from impact with Earth.

I can see several benefits of using an asteroid WMD.

1. It is far harder to destroy than nuclear ICBM's. You'd need thousands upon thousands of Titan V missiles to destroy a multi-million ton asteroid.

2. One of these babies can devastate any nation, no matter how large or small it is. I can devastate nations the size of Praetor (6+ billion nation) or AMF or these 4+ billion nations. I won't need to manufacture 100,000 ICBM's to hope just 100 get through their huge SDI and ABM defense networks. The asteroid would just rip through these networks like tissue paper.

3. Having millions of tons of solid rock as a WMD has a phychological and terror factor that nukes don't quite reach to.

The tech is already there, and has been there since the 1970's - 1980's.
Lemme see... Was the Apollo spacecraft, or for the matter, the space shuttle, the size of an asteroid? Heck, if you are really using WMDs as a deterrence in a non-first strike policy (as clearly stated in your previous statements some threads back), then why do you care so much about the "terror" factor? Aren't you also the one who says that you won't accept any huge losses in terms of proportion (when comared to teh opponent's losses) when you are facing superior technology of an in-depth and complex nature? If you are truly backing up that claim, then why are you using this as a "nation-destroyer" anyways? Wouldn't that be unfair to your opponent OOCly?

1) What relevance does this have to anything? We're discussing a useful alternative to WMDs, not discuss what you're going to do RIGHT NOW.

I would haul the asteroid back to Earth during peace-time, then by the time war does break out, I'll have it in orbit ready to drop on the enemy's head unless they stop the war.

2) And these people (who you are presumably in a state of total war with, if you're planning to destroy their entire civilisation) will just accept that? And they wont notice when you start pulling an ansteroid back to earth? And what will they be doing in the mea-time anyway? Just sitting there waiting?

Again, I'm not going to take this project during war-time. I'll just do it during peace-time, and if any questions are raised, I'll just claim it is an scientific endaveour. I could claim I'm building a space colony or something.

...and you are saying that you are going to call this a "scientific endeavour"? How can you expect people to still believe this as a "scientific endeavour" if your military is spending a huge portion of their defence budget for a period of time such as twenty years, exclusively, on this project? Certainly, an intelligent human being would be able to realize that this would be something beyond simply being a "scientific endeavour".

Simple solution.

Black Ops or "Black Hole".

I can claim that I only have $10 trillion for military funding while secretly procuring the other $2 trillion for this project. If questions are asked, I can claim I am funding a civilian or non-military agency, such as NASA.

I can claim that I only have $10 trillion for military funding while secretly procuring the other $2 trillion for this project. If questions are asked, I can claim I am funding a civilian or non-military agency, such as NASA.
Wow. You secretly divert $2,000,000,000,000 dollars to something secret, and expect no one noticing that? More so, if you are really "secretly" diverting the other $2 trillion dollars, then why do you even bother to answer others' questions regarding where the $2 trillion went? Even then, if this is not secret, to many intelligent human being, using a large portion of the military budget to fund a civilian program when the civilian agency already has enough money would be an excessively wasteful usage of money.

Lemme see... Was the Apollo spacecraft, or for the matter, the space shuttle, the size of an asteroid? Heck, if you are really using WMDs as a deterrence in a non-first strike policy (as clearly stated in your previous statements some threads back), then why do you care so much about the "terror" factor? Aren't you also the one who says that you won't accept any huge losses in terms of proportion (when comared to teh opponent's losses) when you are facing superior technology of an in-depth and complex nature? If you are truly backing up that claim, then why are you using this as a "nation-destroyer" anyways? Wouldn't that be unfair to your opponent OOCly?

1. I do realize that the asteroid is much bigger than the Apollo, Space Shuttle, or space stations. However, technology can be up-scaled if the need arises. For example, I could manufacture a space shuttle 4x as big as the RL ones using the exact same materials, engines, electronics, etc. Then call it "Space Shuttle-X"

2. I'm looking to use the terror factor to make other nations fear invading me, or think three times before invading. Their populace would look upon the skies and know a huge rock can come crashing down on their heads, and not much they can do about it unless they *do not* go to war with me, or withdraw popular support for the war (if one should happen).

3. I will never be the one who attacks first with WMD's. I have made that clear throughout the various WMD threads I've debated in. The enemy will be the one who will end up WMD'ing me first. My nation either dies 100% or survives in a small area. Then once that happens, I send my asteroid in, to effectively end the offending nation's existence just as surely as 1000 nuclear ICBM's.

4. Using an asteroid as a WMD isn't that difficult to understand technologically. Just stick rocket boosters in them, or use nuclear shockwaves to move the asteroid. Presto, you got yourself an asteroid WMD. No complex technologies needed.

5. Lets take a look at this phrase you put up.

then why are you using this as a "nation-destroyer" anyways? Wouldn't that be unfair to your opponent OOCly?

It would be unfair to me if a 4+ billion nation decides to invade me. It would be unfair to me if a dogpile forms aganist me. It would be unfair to me if my enemy employs seemingly invinicbile military hardware + equipment while I can't seem to counter his / hers. Need I go on?

All this is assuming that my asteroid WMD doesn't exist, or these nations do not know about my asteroid WMD IC'ly.

==============================

All this aside... is it truly a crime to be different in NS? Every time I try to come up with completely different ideas, or never-thought-of-before ideas, people try to force me back to the boring "norm" or conforms of standard stuff. I want to try radical and original ideas, not use the same old boring stuff over and over (like "I have nukes for WMD. How boring.")

The tech is already there, and has been there since the 1970's - 1980's. We have demostrated the capability to launch men to the moon, and have men actually walk on non-terrestrial surfaces. Men have also been working in zero-gravity enviroment for 20 - 30 years, known as EVA or space-walks to maintain satellites, space stations, and space shuttles.

If we can send men to the moon, then it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that we could send men to Mars or the asteroid belt just beyond it.

Now, the only problem I see is how to implement these "already-established" technologies towards hauling an asteroid back to Earth.This is exactly equivalent to claiming that because a few Homo Sapiens in the paleolithic, 15000 years ago, managed to produce logboats to cross a kilometre of open water, they were able to pull off the modern level of worldwide sea transport. 15000 years ago.

I can use the shockwaves from the nuclear detonations to "push" the asteroid forward. IIRC, NASA looked at those possibilities with nuclear explosions to divert potential Extinction Level asteroids away from impact with Earth.

I can see several benefits of using an asteroid WMD.

1. It is far harder to destroy than nuclear ICBM's. You'd need thousands upon thousands of Titan V missiles to destroy a multi-million ton asteroid.

2. One of these babies can devastate any nation, no matter how large or small it is. I can devastate nations the size of Praetor (6+ billion nation) or AMF or these 4+ billion nations. I won't need to manufacture 100,000 ICBM's to hope just 100 get through their huge SDI and ABM defense networks. The asteroid would just rip through these networks like tissue paper.

3. Having millions of tons of solid rock as a WMD has a phychological and terror factor that nukes don't quite reach to.First of all, this is space. No shockwaves. Only gamma radiation, fast neutrons and bomb vapor. Thus, vastly less thrust.

1. True. Too bad that you need even MORE missiles (Well, their equivalent in chemical propellant) to move it.

2. 100000 ICBMs are cheaper than this. You also require the warheads of the 100k ICBMs to move the asteorid, if you go with the orion drive thing. The ICBMs will also hit their target vastly faster. The ICBMs will only destroy one nation, the asteorid is a threat to the world. Abu-Dhabi Khristatata once had a civil war with one faction dropping spacedy colonies on ADK Earth. It received a decapitation strike from New York and Jersey. Abu-Dhabi Khristatata was entirely destroyed, the survivers forcibly moved off earth to another system, their technology level scaled down to the neolithic. You want this to happen to you?

Oh, and a one shot nationkiller is fantastically bad RP, no matter how feasible.

3. If it was feasible, perhaps... but then 2. comes into play. You wont be liked.

Wow. You secretly divert $2,000,000,000,000 dollars to something secret, and expect no one noticing that? More so, if you are really "secretly" diverting the other $2 trillion dollars, then why do you even bother to answer others' questions regarding where the $2 trillion went? Even then, if this is not secret, to many intelligent human being, using a large portion of the military budget to fund a civilian program when the civilian agency already has enough money would be an excessively wasteful usage of money.

No, no, no...

What I meant was that I would only post IC'ly a military budget of $10 trillion. For all intents and purposes, other nations would view or intelligence service or whatever my military as a $10 trillion budget.

I can channel that extra $2 trillion into dummy corporations, NASA-type of agencies, invest in private sectors, etc. Take Area-51 in RL for example. Do we know if there are uber-secret research and budgets going on in there? Alien beings? No, we don't. For all we know, it could just be a dusty old military base with no significance whatsoever other than "mythology" and conspiracy theorists.

I could apply similiar "hiding" with my money and such. What's more, what I'll be doing would be millions of miles away from any prying eyes.

This is exactly equivalent to claiming that because a few Homo Sapiens in the paleolithic, 15000 years ago, managed to produce logboats to cross a kilometre of open water, they were able to pull off the modern level of worldwide sea transport. 15000 years ago.

Three points.

First, it has been theorized and shown to be possible that the Egyptians could travel from Africa to South America via papyrus boats (I read about it way back in high school, I think it was Popular Mechanics or TIME magazine). Polynesians did this very thing, establishing themselves among the Pacific islands like Hawaii for example.

Second, if the 15,000 B.C. humans could have built a huge log raft, they could possibly island hop in the Pacific Ocean, or cross from France to England, or from Scandavia to Greenland.

Third, a more accurate analogy would be comparing tech from 100 A.D. to MT worldwide transport, not 15,000 B.C. Because by 100 A.D. humans had shipbuilding down pat, they knew how to build ships, not rely on log rafts and such. If 100 A.D. Romans built a strong and large trieme boat then they could have travelled to Greenland, then from there to the Americas, like the Vikings would do 800 - 1000 years later.

First of all, this is space. No shockwaves. Only gamma radiation, fast neutrons and bomb vapor. Thus, vastly less thrust.

False.

When stars go nova and explode, they send out shockwaves that destroy planets and such. Thus, your point of "no shockwaves' is false.

1. True. Too bad that you need even MORE missiles (Well, their equivalent in chemical propellant) to move it.

2. 100000 ICBMs are cheaper than this. You also require the warheads of the 100k ICBMs to move the asteorid, if you go with the orion drive thing. The ICBMs will also hit their target vastly faster. The ICBMs will only destroy one nation, the asteorid is a threat to the world. Abu-Dhabi Khristatata once had a civil war with one faction dropping spacedy colonies on ADK Earth. It received a decapitation strike from New York and Jersey. Abu-Dhabi Khristatata was entirely destroyed, the survivers forcibly moved off earth to another system, their technology level scaled down to the neolithic. You want this to happen to you?

Oh, and a one shot nationkiller is fantastically bad RP, no matter how feasible.

3. If it was feasible, perhaps... but then 2. comes into play. You wont be liked.

That may all be true.

However, with this, I'd be able to stand more of a chance aganist these "OMG! HUGE!" 4+ billion nations.

If they act n00bish and decide to invade someone half their size for the hell of it, or if they decide to dogpile on me like they did to Feline Catfish and Call To Power... then I'll have perfect justification to use this WMD OOC'ly.

Nobody likes a warmonger who picks on smaller nations, and as I've said repeatedly, I will 99% of the time never be the warmonger and invade other nations. I'll be the one who *WILL* be invaded in any war RP.

All this aside... is it truly a crime to be different in NS? Every time I try to come up with completely different ideas, or never-thought-of-before ideas, people try to force me back to the boring "norm" or conforms of standard stuff. I want to try radical and original ideas, not use the same old boring stuff over and over (like "I have nukes for WMD. How boring.")
There's nothing wrong with coming up with creative ideas. In fact, I commend you for the fundamental value for coming up with rather innovative idea of using an object in space as a weapon - regardless of how flawed or unfeasible it is in reality. However, an idea is drastically reduced in its value when it is not realistically feasible, especially with an idea on this scale. At the same time, ideas doesn't have to be technology-related either, it can also be related to new strategies and doctrines.

Hmmm.... I seem to remember something from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (Love me, Love my Heinlein) about a linear magnetic-induction railgun set up on the moon which dropped large rocks on the Earth, wrapped in steel to give the ability to throw them. Rather effectively, as I remember - with the advantage of while the moon could throw rocks rather easily, throwing stuff at the moon was far more difficult (gravity can be such a bitch sometimes).

I also remember Heinlein was a whiz with the ole slipstick, and figured his masses sufficient to actually wipe out large parts of cities - the man was an engineer after all.

Functionally effective? Yep. Large masses make large holes if delivered correctly and at sufficient speed. The catch is that speed and a heavy enough mass.

So, rather then hear DA and the rest constantly "bash" and say this and that and the other thing is completely wrong and unfeasible and silly in a game which is consensual reality anyway, how about these forum bullies put their heads to use and figure a feasible mass and velocity to cause sufficient damage?

Because I am really getting tired of the "forum bully" approach.

Oh, and Omz? Doesn't even have to approach "realistic". If you don't want to play with it on it's terms - don't. If you want to be helpful, use your powers for good.

[/rant]

Oh, and Omz? Doesn't even have to approach "realistic". If you don't want to play with it on it's terms - don't. If you want to be helpful, use your powers for good.
Sicne the NS roleplaying system, is after all, based on the decisions of the players, it is also true that many - if not most RPers in the MT/PMT timeframe - would not accept something that is blatantly unrealistic, especially something so destructive and has so much value. I don't every intend to force one to follow my advice either, as it is still up to them - and doing the reverse is stupid. If Sharina doesn't want to follow the advices that are given by the other fellow posters here, it is his/her choice, though he/she shouldn't be surprised when 1% of the NS PMT population would reject his/her asteroid weapon system.

And yes, I do intend to be helpful. If Sharina him/herself (sorry for the mixup, Sharina) feels that my arguments aren't helpful, then I'll happily avoid engaging in a debate with him/her later on, and offer an apology, while finding other alternatives. Further, since my arguments (which is not intended to be offensive in any way) are, after all, directed towards Sharina in this logical debate adn not you in particular, I don't really understand why you are ticked by it.

EDIT: I also don't quite understand this "power" statement. My power in particular, are after all, IC powers, regardless of the influence it may cast ICly. OOCly, I believe that as a member of the NS RP community, I have the same amount of this-so-called "power" as any other RPer in NS.

Hell, who needs asteroids?

With enough thrust, we could drop the moon on earth! (The moon is already in orbit, and enough disturbance would drop it into Earth, I think)Sure, there may be some minor repurcussions like the end of civilization, and the fact that huge ecological disasters like no tides, but it'd make one helluva threat.

"I launch my nookz at u!!!"'

*Moon drops on nation saying aforemention statement.*

EDIT: I also don't quite understand this "power" statement. My power in particular, are after all, IC powers, regardless of the influence it may cast ICly. OOCly, I believe that as a member of the NS RP community, I have the same amount of this-so-called "power" as any other RPer in NS.

OOC: The phrase is an old comic book reference - a villian would be a superhero if only he would use his power for good. In your case, it is "why not help (whomever) figure out something rather then just rip down each thing they bring up?".

It's the negative statements without any sort of positive "well, you might not be able to x but you might y if you z" which causes contention.


Hell, who needs asteroids?

With enough thrust, we could drop the moon on earth! (The moon is already in orbit, and enough disturbance would drop it into Earth, I think)Sure, there may be some minor repurcussions like the end of civilization, and the fact that huge ecological disasters like no tides, but it'd make one helluva threat.

"I launch my nookz at u!!!"'

*Moon drops on nation saying aforemention statement.*

At the very least, I think someone would notice...

OOC: There's also the fact that if an idea is put out, the same idea would be subjected to criticism and scrutiny. This is a similar matter, as we are here debating about the actual feasibility of the weaponization of asteroids and the employment of the said system, not giving suggestions based on the assumption that said system would actually be fundamentally feasible in concept.

Hmmm.... I seem to remember something from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (Love me, Love my Heinlein) about a linear magnetic-induction railgun set up on the moon which dropped large rocks on the Earth, wrapped in steel to give the ability to throw them. Rather effectively, as I remember - with the advantage of while the moon could throw rocks rather easily, throwing stuff at the moon was far more difficult (gravity can be such a bitch sometimes).

I also remember Heinlein was a whiz with the ole slipstick, and figured his masses sufficient to actually wipe out large parts of cities - the man was an engineer after all.

Functionally effective? Yep. Large masses make large holes if delivered correctly and at sufficient speed. The catch is that speed and a heavy enough mass.

So, rather then hear DA and the rest constantly "bash" and say this and that and the other thing is completely wrong and unfeasible and silly in a game which is consensual reality anyway, how about these forum bullies put their heads to use and figure a feasible mass and velocity to cause sufficient damage?

Because I am really getting tired of the "forum bully" approach.

Oh, and Omz? Doesn't even have to approach "realistic". If you don't want to play with it on it's terms - don't. If you want to be helpful, use your powers for good.

[/rant]

OOC: I read the book a little while ago, but I think you are confusing something here. Sharina was saying that it would be cost effective to stick rockets on an asteroid and use it to wipe out a nation. Now you are giving an example of where there already exists a big railgun thingy on the moon hurling rocks at the earth and trying to equate them.

I believe that there is a big difference between the two. On the moon they didn't need to strap rockets on the rocks since they already have the big gun to do the work for them. They also didn''t need to go far to get a whole bunch of rocks either. Just scoop a few out and then encase them in steel. Going by the picture in the link provide below, I'm pretty sure that the railgun in Heinlein's book were not tossing asteroids that big. Like you say, enough to wipe out cities so I'm thinking much smaller.

For me, a greater threat would be someone building a railgun on the moon and then flinging rocks around with abandon rather than mounting rockets on an asteroid. And in Heinlein's book, I think the earth forces went after those big guns as quickly as they could. This is also why that another nation (well, not a nation but more of a diplomatic office that represented an organization) was vehemently opposed to one nation that wanted to construct a massive railgun on a certain planet long ago.

Heck, even KE satellites give me the willies. :)

As well, putting most or all of your eggs in one basket (rockets on an asteroid is but one example) is a very risky proposition with a lot of unknowns. I think one of the greatest challenges would be keeping it a secret since someone is bound to notice a big spaceship (or fleet) going to the asteroid belt and fiddling around. As well, you can't exactly test this idea once you get it going. After all, if one of the scientists made an error, perhaps the asteroid would land on your own nation instead of your victims.

I think this is why modern armies prefer to use well tested, robust systems instead of relying on a one shot wonder that may not work when it is supposed to. You have to build in redundancies to cover the gaps that will happen.

Finally, I think it is great that folks like Sharina are always coming up with creative ideas. Perhaps what you mean, Vastiva, is that some folks need to be more gentle in their criticism?

Sharina, I would think that some type of railgun on the moon would be more of a threat than grabbing an asteroid. The moon is much closer and you might be able to spin the existence of the railgun by saying you use it to transport cargo cheaply. I'm pretty sure that is what the Heinlein book said the gun was used for. That is, it went from being used for peaceful purposes to being a weapon of war.

To defend your gun or guns, you would need a fair number of spacey ships as well as some Moon to Orbit intercept type missiles (to take care of the pesky invasion force).

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0011/20crater/

OOC: Uhmmm... at no point did I say strapping rockets on asteroids was a great idea. Yes, you could do it. The problem would be interception and time.

A railgun on the moon, on the other hand, would be more feasible - and not a bad cargo launcher.

Sure, with enough power you could ram the moon into NSEarth.... very FT, but hey, people blow up star systems in FT... MT you can forget it though...

And yep, methinks a "kinder, gentler" approach to "I have an idea" would be a wonderful thing. Any idiot can go "that won't work!" - and how many people remember who told the Wright Brothers that?

I think I'd be completely shocked if someone gave some actual help rather then the whole "OMG YOO IZ SOOOO WRONG!" schtick.

OOC: There's also the fact that if an idea is put out, the same idea would be subjected to criticism and scrutiny. This is a similar matter, as we are here debating about the actual feasibility of the weaponization of asteroids and the employment of the said system, not giving suggestions based on the assumption that said system would actually be fundamentally feasible in concept.

OOC: I'll try again...

Who CARES about the system used? The CONCEPT is "I want to throw large masses at things". At which point, stating


"Well, throwing the entire moon (insert mass of moon here) at a planet is rather energy inefficient, given you have to not only change the momentum of the body - which is going to take alot of force - but you're going to be very noticable in doing it. Unless you're FT, in which case, enjoy your billiards game.

On the other hand, throwing a mass at a planet isn't such a bad idea. You could possibly use a "short-range" railgun from the moon, for example, or use massive nuclear explosions to move an asteroid from the belt to a collision vector with NSEarth. However, either is going to present some problems... (insert long technical discussion).

Either way, it's possible, but will take some work, and I think I've covered the disadvantages of each enough to get you thinking.

...works better then going...


YOU WANNA DO WHAT? HOW DARE YOU TRY DOING THAT! YOU CAN'T DO THAT, DIDN'T YOU KNOW YOU COULDN'T DO THAT! HOW DARE YOU!

...which is what most "bitchoutfests" amount to after a very short time.

Sharina:

On "Funding the moving of an Asteroid": Using multiple shell corporations and "black ops" money (fantastic stuff) could conceivably create the impression a civilian mining effort is taking place. At which point there is likely to be a hue and cry by anyone noticing - but then again, this is NS.

Personally, I'd place it behind the moon so as to reduce gravitational problems (note, I didn't say "eliminate") and to give you a wonderful "stealth shield" from viewers on the planet of what you were really doing. After all, if you can find the raw materials out there, and have a working production facility, you could make your own weapons without transporting them from NSEarth to your asteroid base.

OOC: Uhmmm... at no point did I say strapping rockets on asteroids was a great idea. Yes, you could do it. The problem would be interception and time.

A railgun on the moon, on the other hand, would be more feasible - and not a bad cargo launcher.

Sure, with enough power you could ram the moon into NSEarth.... very FT, but hey, people blow up star systems in FT... MT you can forget it though...

And yep, methinks a "kinder, gentler" approach to "I have an idea" would be a wonderful thing. Any idiot can go "that won't work!" - and how many people remember who told the Wright Brothers that?

I think I'd be completely shocked if someone gave some actual help rather then the whole "OMG YOO IZ SOOOO WRONG!" schtick.

OOC:

Vastiva:

Ah okay. I apologize. Your reference to Heinlein's book was an attempt to help Sharina. I misunderstood.

Moving a moon certainly is far FT. I would think that folks who play at that level are playing against ones who are at a similar tech level, which means that they would be able to counteract the "I'm dropping the moon on your head" attack.

First, it has been theorized and shown to be possible that the Egyptians could travel from Africa to South America via papyrus boats (I read about it way back in high school, I think it was Popular Mechanics or TIME magazine). Polynesians did this very thing, establishing themselves among the Pacific islands like Hawaii for example.

Second, if the 15,000 B.C. humans could have built a huge log raft, they could possibly island hop in the Pacific Ocean, or cross from France to England, or from Scandavia to Greenland.

Third, a more accurate analogy would be comparing tech from 100 A.D. to MT worldwide transport, not 15,000 B.C. Because by 100 A.D. humans had shipbuilding down pat, they knew how to build ships, not rely on log rafts and such. If 100 A.D. Romans built a strong and large trieme boat then they could have travelled to Greenland, then from there to the Americas, like the Vikings would do 800 - 1000 years later.Completely irrelevant. IRL, we're moving weight in the single digit tons in space, as freight (And this is orbital traffic. Interplanetary distances use lighter things). You want to increase this by, oh, about nine orders of magnitude. Read: One billion times of what we manage today.

And this just isn't possible without some really hardcore techwank, which would make you eligible to be smashed with $Spacefleet. Which, incidentally, would mean that the entire asteorid idea would end up being pointless simply because it can be intercepted.

False.

When stars go nova and explode, they send out shockwaves that destroy planets and such. Thus, your point of "no shockwaves' is false.When stars go nova, they release rather excessive amounts of radiation (Tends to vaporise things) and a good portion of their mass is accelerated to rather high velocities (Lots of KE). Rather different from a tiny nuke.

Oh, and last I checked, planets just become uninhabitable (For obvious reasons). They arev not destroyed in a deatstaresque fashion.

However, with this, I'd be able to stand more of a chance aganist these "OMG! HUGE!" 4+ billion nations.

If they act n00bish and decide to invade someone half their size for the hell of it, or if they decide to dogpile on me like they did to Feline Catfish and Call To Power... then I'll have perfect justification to use this WMD OOC'ly.

Nobody likes a warmonger who picks on smaller nations, and as I've said repeatedly, I will 99% of the time never be the warmonger and invade other nations. I'll be the one who *WILL* be invaded in any war RP.1. And they wouldn't do the same (Assuming that it's sane)... Why? If you don't want to interact, you don't do it. If you want to interact, you deal with the fact that you're not the biggest one around, simple as that.

And I find it amusing that you use bad RP on the other side as an excuse to do the same. Last I checked, you can just say 'Fuck it'. Oh, and it's also mildly amusing that you'r epre-emptively accusing, well, pretty much everyone bigger than you of being a bad RPer.

Hmmm.... I seem to remember something from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (Love me, Love my Heinlein) about a linear magnetic-induction railgun set up on the moon which dropped large rocks on the Earth, wrapped in steel to give the ability to throw them.And this has... What to do with the idea of dropping gigaton-level asteorids on earth by way of using rocket thrusters? Apart from using KE to achive damage, that is.

... Oh, right, nothing. Congratulations, once more, you manage to argue just for the sake of arguing while ignoring everything that has actually been said.

So, rather then hear DA and the rest constantly "bash" and say this and that and the other thing is completely wrong and unfeasible and silly in a game which is consensual reality anyway, how about these forum bullies put their heads to use and figure a feasible mass and velocity to cause sufficient damage?
Oh, I did that, for me (Not for asteorids, though. For railguns). Ideal velocity for max damage being along the lines of 100km/s (v0), ideal weight in the 10- 90 ton range. Requires a few billion (Yes, billion) amperes of current. Gives me single-digit kilotons of yield.

Of course, in every even remotely feasible scenario, you will have to deal with energy efficiency (The faster the projectile, the more it is slowed down by the atmophere, annoyingly) & actually feasible weight, so make that single-digit tons (Minimum, or you get burned up in the atmosphere. Incidentally, this is assuming an (Expensive) density of 13.565g/cm^3. For sheer iron, single-digit tons tend to burn up in their entirety) and the same velocity. Now, to make it entirely feasible, reduce the velocity to about ten km/s. This gives you about (Actually, somewhat less) 1/100 the yield, so... Oh, yes, doubledigit tons of TNT.

Of course, effective orbital railgun networks in a PMT scenario are... Bwa... bwahaha. About as cost efficient as mining a gas giant in another galactic supercluster for hydrogen when you have more than enough of it on earth.

Personally, I'd place it behind the moon so as to reduce gravitational problems (note, I didn't say "eliminate") and to give you a wonderful "stealth shield" from viewers on the planet of what you were really doing.Of course, it would either start orbiting the moon (Whoops, it's suddenly seen) or start orbiting earth. And being in a higher orbit, it would move at a different velocity. As a result, to stay behind the moon, you would have to constantly apply thrust. Which requires fuel (And maintenance). Which requires money. Which is bad.

Completely irrelevant. IRL, we're moving weight in the single digit tons in space, as freight (And this is orbital traffic. Interplanetary distances use lighter things). You want to increase this by, oh, about nine orders of magnitude. Read: One billion times of what we manage today.

And this just isn't possible without some really hardcore techwank, which would make you eligible to be smashed with $Spacefleet. Which, incidentally, would mean that the entire asteorid idea would end up being pointless simply because it can be intercepted.

I can employ nuclear explosions, as they are several orders of magnitude more powerful than chemical propulsion systems (gas, rockets, etc.) I think I just have just come up with another idea how to do this. I can send a small contingent of spaceships to the asteroid belt, and set up two operations in there.

1. Resource mining. This is a feasible and potentially good source of resources.

2. Secretly plant several nuclear devices near or around a particular asteroid, then detonate them if I'm about to be wiped off the surface of Earth. My computers can determine the trajectory and such for the asteroid to reach Earth and the enemy nation. I won't need to use rocket boosters on the asteroid itself for the trip towards Earth, I can "push" the asteroid towards Earth and let the rock's momentum carry it all the way.


My nation will still survive in my asteroid mining colonies and I can re-start my nation from there. Then once I regain some strength, I can return to Earth and reclaim my former territories with a massive bombardment of occupying authorities or the invader nation, via hundreds of small 1 - 2 ton rocks encased in heat ceramics mined from the asteroid belt.



1. And they wouldn't do the same (Assuming that it's sane)... Why? If you don't want to interact, you don't do it. If you want to interact, you deal with the fact that you're not the biggest one around, simple as that.

And I find it amusing that you use bad RP on the other side as an excuse to do the same. Last I checked, you can just say 'Fuck it'. Oh, and it's also mildly amusing that you'r epre-emptively accusing, well, pretty much everyone bigger than you of being a bad RPer.

I never said that every nation double my size or bigger are n00bs or newbies.

I'm only accusing those nations who actually warmonger upon smaller nations for the fun of it, and perverted joy in picking on people smaller and less defensible than the warmonger. Specificially situations such like a 4+ billion nation invading and manhandling a 1 billion nation, or even a 100 million nation.

However, the large nations who RP well, and not act like n00bs "I'm a huge nation so I can do anything I want without serious consquences! RAWRRR!" would be much more recieved by me. I'd be far more willing to RP with nations larger than me if they are reasonable, work out good RP, and not act like n00bs.

I can employ nuclear explosions, as they are several orders of magnitude more powerful than chemical propulsion systems (gas, rockets, etc.) I think I just have just come up with another idea how to do this. I can send a small contingent of spaceships to the asteroid belt, and set up two operations in there.Little problem there: 1. A chemical propulsion system would propell the vessel rather effectively. An orionesque system would waste most of the energy in other directions. 2. The orion drive was... well, not designed but thought to be featuring mininukes with veeeeeeeeery low yields. 3. You can't use yields that give you the several orders of magnitude of increased power. The initial gamma radiation pulse would be rather nasty. And I don't mean 'Oi, I'm irradiated' nasty but 'Shit, my hull has been vaporised' nasty.

1. Resource mining. This is a feasible and potentially good source of resources.What is cheaper? Mining on earth, transporting over the sea, or mining 300 mio kilometres away, transporting by way of spacedyships worth hundreds of millions (And lets not forget your (P)MTness which kind of rules out this kind of spaceship). Thus, what is more feasible? There's a reason as of why I'm supposing that I import most of my raw mterials from the res of the world, with spacedy mining beingdone in relatively small quantities, and only to be capable of doing it when the need arises (Say, blockade, embargo). It's cheaper. And anyone coosing the more expensive solution would immediately be suspected to have some non-public ideas with it.

2. Secretly plant several nuclear devices near or around a particular asteroid, then detonate them if I'm about to be wiped off the surface of Earth. My computers can determine the trajectory and such for the asteroid to reach Earth and the enemy nation. I won't need to use rocket boosters on the asteroid itself for the trip towards Earth, I can "push" the asteroid towards Earth and let the rock's momentum carry it all the way....

...

Just... No. Accuracy would be fucked. IF you manage to hit earth (Hard, but not entirely impossible with chemical propulsion. Nukes? Forget it) you will never know WHERE you're hitting it. It's just... No.

My nation will still survive in my asteroid mining colonies and I can re-start my nation from there. Then once I regain some strength, I can return to Earth and reclaim my former territories with a massive bombardment of occupying authorities or the invader nation, via hundreds of small 1 - 2 ton rocks encased in heat ceramics mined from the asteroid belt.I dare pointing out that at such a leve, your opponent is supposed to have spacedy capacities all by himself. Which kinda fucks the idea, really.

I never said that every nation double my size or bigger are n00bs or newbies.
True. You implied it, though.

This thread now has my attention, as it is a preveiw for what I intend to do with my nation under the Hughes Doctrine...

Sharina, if you would be kind enough to look at 'Announcment of Two Doctrines' by myself in the same forum, I'm certain that we could work together ICly to create a civilian orbital infrastructure.

Yes. 'Civilian'. >.>;;;

KE = 1/2 mv^2.

Satellite weight of, say, 5 tons (Very heavy, in fact, exceptionally heavy), velocity of about 17 km/s (Typical asteorid velocity, which is significantly faster than what a satellite would actually manage when descending upon earth, since it would be slower than escape velocity (Slightly less than 12 km/s) give you about 42 megajoules of energy. That's about four shots from a MBT main gun.

And this is disregarding the loss of velocity (And thus, kinetic energy) due to friction in the atmosphere and the tendency of smaller objects to burn in the atmosphere.

Now... Care to point me to where a single MBT destroyed a city the size of Washington DC by way of firing four shots with its main gun?


If the ISS were to impact on DC, DC would be destroyed, as would the surrounding countryside, were something the size of Hubble to impact DC, DC would be destroyed, with less of the surrounding countryside, and since the satelite would have been sent(using the tiny amount of maneuvering fuel it would have) directly at the target while still under power, it would have greater speed than gravity(terminal velocity) would normally allow(and velocity is accel, not speed in this case), meaning you get a bigger explosion.

Originally posted by Sharina:

I can employ nuclear explosions, as they are several orders of magnitude more powerful than chemical propulsion systems (gas, rockets, etc.) I think I just have just come up with another idea how to do this. I can send a small contingent of spaceships to the asteroid belt, and set up two operations in there.

"In space, no one can hear you scream." Do you know why that's true? Sound travels by bouncing air molecules around. There's no air molecules in space, therefore no sound. Same principle applies when detonating a nuke in space. There are no air molecules to transport the overpressure wave. As such, almost all the energy from the nuke would be turned into emp energy, unless the nuke was buried in the asteroid. This would provide new problems. The vast majority of asteroids the size you desire are composed not of solid metal but of a conglomeration of space-dust. As such, detonating a nuke inside them would have one of two effects: 1. the asteroid would simply blow apart, and your trillion dollar venture goes "poof!" or 2. the asteroid acts like a cushion, and the area around the nuke vaporizes and very little change in its movement occurs. #1 is actually the less likely of the two. #2 has been proven in laboratory studies, where an 'asteroid' (minaturized, of course) suspended in an electromagnetic field was pegged by a particle travelling uberfast. The conglomeration asteroids simply absorbed the blow, with barely any movement. Fascinating stuff.

If I remember correctly, in space you require less power to transport heavy things than you do on Earth itself because of gravity. I can push a satellite away in space, and fly backwards as well, but both of us would be moving. This wouldn't be possible on surface of Earth, as I'd fall to the ground while the satellite does not move at all.

Apply this same idea towards moving asteroids. Lets say, an asteroid weighs 10 - 20 million tons. I would only need to exert power needed to move maybe 100,000 - 200,000 tons to get the asteroid moving, as opposed to necessary power to move the full 10 - 20 million tons on the surface of Earth itself.


I have another question. If astronauts and such can push themselves off a satellite, both they and the satellite would move in opposite directions, correct? Then why cannot nuclear explosions act as a giant "push" like astronauts push aganist satellites? All that energy has to go somewhere, as I remember "Energy cannot be destroyed or created, only converted (into matter or other forms of energy)".

Whats impossible about constructing a very strong tube, detonate the nuke inside the tube, then have all that energy blast out of the tube, pushing the asteroid forward? It'd be like pushing the water through a straw using your breath, and the water would move the object it's directed at (assuming the object is independent of the surface, not a part of something like a floor, wall, or whatever).

Please enlighten me.

I'd suggest burying the nuke under the surface of the asteroid. When detonated, it would eject large amounts of asteroid material, serving as thrust. After the area has cooled down enough, bury another nuke and repeat. Cheaper than building a nuke-resistant tube.

Of course, this means that you have to select an asteroid big enough that it will still be of usable size even after you've blown huge chunks off of it.

Edit: Also, linear accelerator propulsion is a possibility if you select an asteroid with enough metal to be ferromagnetic. Just fire chunks off into space with a bloody huge mass driver. Same principle, more precise. You could even produce some of the mass-driver parts and framework out of asteroid rock, and detach it for reuse after you send it on its way.

NERVA engines could also be fitted to asteroids containing anything that can be used as working fluid. Ice would be good fuel; NERVA engines convert it to steam and fire it at high velocity. All you have to do is haul the nuclear fuel and engine components to the asteroid.

I have a major RL crisis in progress, so I won't be very active here for a few more weeks.

That said, Sharina's last post contains an error. In microgravity environments, weight is not as important as mass. Uncle Isaac's Laws of motion rule all macrospopic motion in microgravity. The force required to move something depends on the mass and existing relative motion of the object. These considerations make moving large masses very difficult. Not impossible, just difficult. You can find more discussion on moving in space in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278778


BTW, here's a site that calulates damage from orbital strikes:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/


TEO

If the ISS were to impact on DC, DC would be destroyed, as would the surrounding countryside, were something the size of Hubble to impact DC, DC would be destroyed, with less of the surrounding countryside, and since the satelite would have been sent(using the tiny amount of maneuvering fuel it would have) directly at the target while still under power, it would have greater speed than gravity(terminal velocity) would normally allow(and velocity is accel, not speed in this case), meaning you get a bigger explosion.Oh, how do I love thee, claims without any kind of, say, backup.

Weight of the ISS: 1040000 Pounds = 471741 Kilograms.

Assuming that it would impact at 10km/s (Losing basically no velocity whatsoever, but adding a good bit), it would be a 5.6 kiloton impact, about 1/3 of Hiroshima. With the energy being vastly more directed than in the (Omnidirectional) blast of Hiroshima.

Now, since there are things like air resistance, the actual impact velocity would be closer to, oh, probably about 3km/s (And lets not forget that a less-than-massive body like the ISS would lose a good amount of its mass before impact, but I will ignore that for now), which gives us a yield of about 0.5 kilotons. Levelling Washington? Don't make me laugh.

... Now, do you still believe in the Armageddonesque bullshit or are you eventually willing to recognise, oh... Reality?

Apply this same idea towards moving asteroids. Lets say, an asteroid weighs 10 - 20 million tons. I would only need to exert power needed to move maybe 100,000 - 200,000 tons to get the asteroid moving, as opposed to necessary power to move the full 10 - 20 million tons on the surface of Earth itself.Nope. You don't have to defeat Earth' gravity, but you still have to move the 20 million tons.

Now, ignoring momentum, to accelerate the asteorid to, say, 10km/s (with this velocity, it would take about 1.2 years to move it to Earth, but that's assuming that you don't accelerate/ decelerate. So, lets say, at least thre times that) you have to pour in the same energy the asteorid will carry, that is, 20000000000/2 *10000^2 = 1e18 joules (Equivalent to a 239 megaton nuke).

Of course, no drive will ever manage 100% efficiency, so, if you're really good, 50% efficiency, and you only need to spend 2e18 joules or 478 megatons...

I have another question. If astronauts and such can push themselves off a satellite, both they and the satellite would move in opposite directions, correct? Then why cannot nuclear explosions act as a giant "push" like astronauts push aganist satellites?They can (I admitted that above), it's just vastly less efficient than it sounds, and it would not be conventional air pressure, due to the lack of air, but bomb vapor & the EM radiation pulse.

Personally, it's not a method I would be particularly fond of.

(Incidentally, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion) might be interesting for you)

Whats impossible about constructing a very strong tube, detonate the nuke inside the tube, then have all that energy blast out of the tube, pushing the asteroid forward?The tendency of the bombs' initial gamma radiation pulse to vaporise the tube, mostly.

Yanno, Der Angst, if you weren't an asshole, I'd agree with you, point by point.

Rule Number 2 of Roleplaying, though, must come into effect:

Don't let good roleplaying get in the way of good roleplaying.

So, in other words, either sod off, or tone down the hostillity and superiorism attitude.

Yanno, Der Angst, if you weren't an asshole, I'd agree with you, point by point.

Rule Number 2 of Roleplaying, though, must come into effect:

Don't let good roleplaying get in the way of good roleplaying.

So, in other words, either sod off, or tone down the hostillity and superiorism attitude.Awww, thanks.

I do have to wonder where the 'good roleplaying' is in dropping undodgeable nationkiller asteorids, though. But I'm sure that you know the answer to this mystery, oh wise one.

Certainly isn't being an asshat, that much I can tell you.

But as for hte answer, then yes - I do have one. Two. Three, actually.

The first is a military response to stop it from happening in the first place.

The second would be to have a way to negate the threat after the card has been played.

The third would be something that I can see you might have a bit of trouble with, its called 'Diplomacy'. Its where, see, people sit down at a table and instead of insulting them and being asshats to each other, they at least try to remain civil and try to find a way without insulting each other or killing each other to resolve their differences.

And like I said, don't let good roleplaying get in the way of good roleplaying. You've got your priorities wrong.

Rule Number One of Gaming - In general! - is:

"The point of the game is to have fun."

First rule laid down in most RPGs:

"Feel free to ignore a rule if it prevents the GM and the players from enjoying the game."

And while a rules lawyer is useful most of the time, some of the times, and I and a few other people here apparently agree with me, believe that this is one of the times, they're just big. Annoying. Blathering. Crybabies.

Good day.

Hrm. Now (Apart from me wondering what this has to do with a decidedly ooc thread where a more or less realistic point of view is used, as should be obvious from the very first post of this thread), lets see... Sharina was rather explicit in this utterly impossible (In his choosen technology base, anyway) scenario being supposed to be used against bad roleplay (Instead of just telling $Person to fuck off). Thus, the exact opposite of what you're advocating.

In fact, the inevitable result would be wank/ ignore/ bitchfests. Well, if this is what you're considering 'fun'... Feel free. I do, however, happen to disagree.

Edit: And of course, I don't really see the point of arguing plotdeviceness in a thread that deals with things from a realistic point of view...

It's worth noting that pretty much every single II poster has a completely unreasonable fear of nuclear weapons, and not only that, is stupid about levels of retaliation. Probably half the people here think that it's reasonable to flush your entire arsenal at one person over use of tactical nukes-- even the US and Russia's plans during the Cold War generally called for responding in kind, not escalating to an all-out exchange.

In a nuclear war, likely the way it would start is first tactical level weapons. Then, if things escalated from there, major communications centers and transportation hubs in enemy territory. Then bases. Then cities with large amounts of industry that are obviously vital to the war effort. Then oil infrastructure. At this point, likely the respective governments of the nations involved would be seriously breaking down-- however, provided the exchange continued at a low level, probably what would happen next is hitting oil resources in neutral countries, to deny enemies their use.

You see, governments are not insane-- they would not flush an entire arsenal of thousands of weapons in one single attack just aimed at random enemy cities, they would only hit specific targets, and not escalate to an all-out strike instantaneously after the use of one tactical-level weapon.

However, people on NS are insane, or at least stupid with regards to this logic-- there are people here who would initiate a full-scale flush the magazines attack even if a country used nuclear weapons in roles that caused no direct human casualties, such as demolitions, or using nuclear weapons as a means of dealing with the ridiculous missile spam flung back and forth between navies (a sort of super anti-missile).

Modern nuclear weapons are rather small and the yield is also small-- and fallout is generally not a problem with modern weapons, simply because doctrine calls for airburst usage. Anything hit by an airburst will likely be safe to be around within a few weeks (days or even hours if it was a small enough weapon). It's groundbursts that cause mega fallout, but ground bursts also do far less damage-- the only time you would have one is when trying to reach a hardened target of some sort.

Even the EMP is not a terrible factor to modern and postmodern military forces thanks to hardening.

People like to view nuclear weapons in the same category as things like gas or chemical weapons or biological weapons-- horrible and uncontrollable weapons that can cause as much damage to civilians as to the enemy. In other words, these weapons carry a stigmata.

However, nuclear weapons are explosives, not a gas or a toxin or a bacteria. They arn't crude clubs that you bash your opponent over the head with (except for primitive designs, of course).

High-yield, multi-megaton weapons are generally not worth using, as those are the ones that most people fear. I believe that use of low-yield (25 kt and below) weapons is generally acceptable, as their area of effect is not too great. Generally, weapons of 10 kt or less is all that is neccesary for most military purposes-- a 10 kt weapon, for example, has a fireball radius of only 210 meters, and the majority of ionizing radiation from the warhead would only be dispersed as far as two kilometers away.

Such weapons, of course, are easily portable and deployable, but since they are generally best deployed by aircraft or missiles, they can be defended with by maintaining air superiority and theatre-level missile defense systems.

As an anti-missile measure, of course, they are of little concern as far as damage goes, other than the fact that the radiation will screw up your radar systems at least temporarily.

Nuclear devices are tools, not demonic beings out to eat your children. =p

Too bad so many people on NS fail to realize this.

Nope. You don't have to defeat Earth' gravity, but you still have to move the 20 million tons.

Now, ignoring momentum, to accelerate the asteorid to, say, 10km/s (with this velocity, it would take about 1.2 years to move it to Earth, but that's assuming that you don't accelerate/ decelerate. So, lets say, at least thre times that) you have to pour in the same energy the asteorid will carry, that is, 20000000000/2 *10000^2 = 1e18 joules (Equivalent to a 239 megaton nuke).

Of course, no drive will ever manage 100% efficiency, so, if you're really good, 50% efficiency, and you only need to spend 2e18 joules or 478 megatons...

They can (I admitted that above), it's just vastly less efficient than it sounds, and it would not be conventional air pressure, due to the lack of air, but bomb vapor & the EM radiation pulse.

Personally, it's not a method I would be particularly fond of.

(Incidentally, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion) might be interesting for you)

The tendency of the bombs' initial gamma radiation pulse to vaporise the tube, mostly.

Gotcha.

You say I'd need 478 megatons of energy to move the asteroid to Earth at any reasonable speed.

I can bring 40 - 50 nukes of 10 megaton yield, for 400 - 500 megatons total. Not an impossible feat, considering these nukes can be the size of a car. Hauling 40 - 50 cars in space wouldn't need enormous amounts of energy, space, or propulsion. I could either haul them all with 3 - 4 space shuttles, or 1 - 2 "Long Term Mission Spacecraft".

Not an "OMG! Impossible!" scenario.



In regards to your other debate about asteroid mining. I believe that asteroid mining is quite efficient, as it would lower costs of large scale outer-space industry, like building new space shuttles, space stations, etc. from the raw materials in asteroids. That would be cheaper to do than haul thousands or millions of tons of resources from Earth to outer-space, as the constant launching costs would mount higher and higher.

I could construct, say, a 1 kilometer large space station in the asteroid belt, then bring it to Earth orbit for less money than launching all the material from Earth's surface, then assemble it in Earth's orbit while having to deal with derelict space junk or enemy spy satellites. In the asteroid belt, it is far easier to deal with any enemy spy satellites, if you find them snooping around you can destroy them and claim mini-asteroids did it.

Hope I'm not rambling on and that I made any sense.

Nuclear pulse engines are pretty much the only good way to move an asteroid-- look up Project Orion for details.

Bump. I find this discussion interesting, and it shouldn't go away.

Nuclear devices are tools, not demonic beings out to eat your children. =p

Too bad so many people on NS fail to realize this.

Just FYI, AN, Vastiva's "Retaliation" bombardment is 100% dirty bombs - as in cobalt bombs, designed to scatter nasty radioactive dust all over the target zone. Destroy the missile, it'll still scatter radioactivity everywhere in lethal quantities.

FWIW, I've used nuclear weapons on other players twice - once to destroy a biotoxin factory at sea (vaporization was the only 'safe' method"), and to obliterate a much larger fleet before a landing attempt. The first used a 50MT warhead, the second was a splay attack of ten 50kt warheads behind lots of decoys.

Yep, they're weapons - large "booms", but weapons.

And if we're going down, we're taking you with us.

I agree totally with Axis Nova. Nuclear weapons are weapons. Using one nuke does not justify retaliation with 100 nukes, or even one biological or chemical weapon.

The retaliation justified is ENTIRELY determined by how you use a weapon. Shooting in self-defense is less severe than shooting in a military engagement, which is less severe than murder. Likewise, nuking an incoming cloud of missiles is less severe than nuking an attacking fleet, which in turn is less severe than nuking a city.

My nation personally takes the view that nukes are big weapons for dealing with big problems. If we need to destroy something, and the best way is with a nuke, then we will use a nuke. Cobalt bombs, chemicals, and biologicals we avoid, because they are impersonal and uncontrollable. We want to kill what we aim the weapons at, not some poor sod who was standing in the wrong place when the wind changed.

I just want to throw my "Nuclear Docterine" in, the one I use with my nation here.
Basicly, the idea is that nuclear weapons are basicly, large bombs. As such, all weapons I use are "super efficient", designed to leave as little radioactive residue, for as short a period of time as possible. The vast majority of them being artillery fired as well. I believe such weapons, if used in the right time against say, opposing military forces, is a perfictly accecptable idea.
The you get other methods of use, my nuclear air-to-air missiles I arm all of my interceptors with, since, frankly, I don't have a huge military force, I consider this an equalizer.
Stratigic weapons, under my docterine, are only for use as a retaliation against other stratigic weapons. I've found with the growing ammount of "Nuclear BS" going around, like in the FC stuff, I have had to increase my ICBM ammount from around 300, to 1500, just to ensure I can respond in kind to anything. But still, my stratigic weapons are built to be clean, and just there to make a large hole in the ground.

Chemical weapins are a simmilar story. In small ammounts.
I think that in a desert area, when troops engage troops, small ammounts of gas and chemical weapons (Non-persistant, preferably artillery fired) are accecptable. And, as I RP a nation that occupies quite an expanse of such terrain, I think it more then fair if someone lands troops on one of my shores to say, lob a few Phosphogene shells at their troops to "soften them up". Something like a WW1 style "10 kilometer gas cloud" would be out of the question for anything but an ultra last resort.

Just my imput.

It's worth noting that pretty much every single II poster has a completely unreasonable fear of nuclear weapons, and not only that, is stupid about levels of retaliation. Probably half the people here think that it's reasonable to flush your entire arsenal at one person over use of tactical nukes-- even the US and Russia's plans during the Cold War generally called for responding in kind, not escalating to an all-out exchange.HAIL! \*_*

No, seriously, I happen to agree. Entirely.

You say I'd need 478 megatons of energy to move the asteroid to Earth at any reasonable speed.

I can bring 40 - 50 nukes of 10 megaton yield, for 400 - 500 megatons total. Not an impossible feat, considering these nukes can be the size of a car. Hauling 40 - 50 cars in space wouldn't need enormous amounts of energy, space, or propulsion. I could either haul them all with 3 - 4 space shuttles, or 1 - 2 "Long Term Mission Spacecraft".

Not an "OMG! Impossible!" scenario.
Not exactly. 1. The original Orion Drive idea called for nukes with a yield in the order of fractions of a single kiloton, as to avoid actual damage.

2. This is assuming that all the energy propels the ship/ asteorid. However, only a fraction of the energy will reahc it. 10% would be a highly idealistic scenario. 0.1% sound more like it.

So, lets assume 1% energy efficiency, so you need about 47.8 gigatons. Now, that in, say, kiloton yield weapons (A good idea, actually. You can detonate them closer and get more energy from them, as it doesn't spread as wide before reaching the asteorid), that makes 47.8 million warheads... Admittedly, you could probably carry a hundred or so per craft & run.

In regards to your other debate about asteroid mining. I believe that asteroid mining is quite efficient, as it would lower costs of large scale outer-space industry, like building new space shuttles, space stations, etc. from the raw materials in asteroids. That would be cheaper to do than haul thousands or millions of tons of resources from Earth to outer-space, as the constant launching costs would mount higher and higher.True. For that, it would actually be useful. Point conceded.

Destroy the missile, it'll still scatter radioactivity everywhere in lethal quantities.*Blinks* How do you irradiate the cobalt when you don't have the nuclear reaction required to produce the beta (Or alpha, not sure. I suppose it being beta, though) radiation that, well, irradiates the cobalt? Magic?

[/QUOTE]*Blinks* How do you irradiate the cobalt when you don't have the nuclear reaction required to produce the beta (Or alpha, not sure. I suppose it being beta, though) radiation that, well, irradiates the cobalt? Magic?[/QUOTE]

With nuclear devices, the radiation is usually X-ray (Gamma, specifically). Beta and Alpha are largely the product of natural radioactive decay. Well, that's what our Minister for Science thinks his permanent secretary was saying.
If I recall, you were referring to the "cobalt bomb". The answer depends on wether you go with a dirty-bomb or thermo-nuke...

The nuke is an a-bomb with a cobalt shell. Theoretically, the fission reaction will make it into Cobalt-60. With a half-life of five years, this would achieve maximum contamination spread before significant radioactive decay occured (making shelters obsolete), but is still a potent contaminant. Our position is that this encourages "doomsday weapon" research, and four of our physicists are now in jail for trying to build one.

If, however, you MAKE the shell out of Cobalt-60, it's already intensely radioactive. A conventional PE4 slab is more than adequate for a particularly insidious dirty-bomb.

bump

bump again

*Blinks* How do you irradiate the cobalt when you don't have the nuclear reaction required to produce the beta (Or alpha, not sure. I suppose it being beta, though) radiation that, well, irradiates the cobalt? Magic?

My dear smurf, we have nuclear reactors in our nation. Designing a series of reactions to "pre-irradiate" cobalt in the dirty bombs was childs play, as was combining the "scatter mass" with radioactive dust made of uranium and plutonium "cast off".

Really now, DA, is it necessary to attempt to criticize everything? Or perhaps once or twice you could say "Well, you could do it this way" and surprise us with your knowledge instead of having everyone reach for the IGNORE?

*blinks* How do you irradiate the cobalt when you don't have the nuclear reaction required to produce the beta (Or alpha, not sure. I suppose it being beta, though) radiation that, well, irradiates the cobalt? Magic?

With nuclear devices, the radiation is usually X-ray (Gamma, specifically). Beta and Alpha are largely the product of natural radioactive decay. Well, that's what our Minister for Science thinks his permanent secretary was saying.
If I recall, you were referring to the "cobalt bomb". The answer depends on wether you go with a dirty-bomb or thermo-nuke...

The nuke is an a-bomb with a cobalt shell. Theoretically, the fission reaction will make it into Cobalt-60. With a half-life of five years, this would achieve maximum contamination spread before significant radioactive decay occured (making shelters obsolete), but is still a potent contaminant. Our position is that this encourages "doomsday weapon" research, and four of our physicists are now in jail for trying to build one.

If, however, you MAKE the shell out of Cobalt-60, it's already intensely radioactive. A conventional PE4 slab is more than adequate for a particularly insidious dirty-bomb.

And I was hoping he'd have to figure it out for himself... ;)

With nuclear devices, the radiation is usually X-ray (Gamma, specifically). Beta and Alpha are largely the product of natural radioactive decay. Well, that's what our Minister for Science thinks his permanent secretary was saying.
If I recall, you were referring to the "cobalt bomb". The answer depends on wether you go with a dirty-bomb or thermo-nuke...

The nuke is an a-bomb with a cobalt shell. Theoretically, the fission reaction will make it into Cobalt-60. With a half-life of five years, this would achieve maximum contamination spread before significant radioactive decay occured (making shelters obsolete), but is still a potent contaminant. Our position is that this encourages "doomsday weapon" research, and four of our physicists are now in jail for trying to build one.

If, however, you MAKE the shell out of Cobalt-60, it's already intensely radioactive. A conventional PE4 slab is more than adequate for a particularly insidious dirty-bomb.1. I know what a nuclear detonation produces. The thing is that the gamma radiation is incapable of initialising radioactive decay in originally non-radioactive elements (Like, say, non-radioactive cobalt). Thus, you require alpha/ beta radiation to initialise it.

And that's Vastiva's problem. If the thing is shot down, without detonating, it's kinda harmless...

And making the shell out of Cobalt 60 sounds a little... Silly. Given that it decays. Admittedly, maintenance would probably not be much worse than with conventional fusion bombs, but personally, I would consider it to be a mild security risk. And it ain't cheap, either.

Really now, DA, is it necessary to attempt to criticize everything? Or perhaps once or twice you could say "Well, you could do it this way" and surprise us with your knowledge instead of having everyone reach for the IGNORE?*Blinks* Where did I say I ignore, well, anything? The point remains, producing the Cobalt 60, transporting it through the landscape, constantly maintaining the warheads due to this nasty decay, the risk of the silos being blown up, with the cobalt spreading over your nation, all of this makes it sound like a vaguely silly alternative.

Oh, and of course, if the missiles are shot down early (Specifically, over Vastiva), well... Seriously nasty.

But hey, I wont infringe on your right to commit suicide :)

Edit: And of course, handling the warhead for standard maintenance is a bit of a pain, too...

1. I know what a nuclear detonation produces. The thing is that the gamma radiation is incapable of initialising radioactive decay in originally non-radioactive elements (Like, say, non-radioactive cobalt). Thus, you require alpha/ beta radiation to initialise it.

And that's Vastiva's problem. If the thing is shot down, without detonating, it's kinda harmless...

And making the shell out of Cobalt 60 sounds a little... Silly. Given that it decays. Admittedly, maintenance would probably not be much worse than with conventional fusion bombs, but personally, I would consider it to be a mild security risk. And it ain't cheap, either.

Edit: And of course, handling the warhead for standard maintenance is a bit of a pain, too...

I stated quite specifically that it was the FISSION REACTION that turns the cobalt into a less stable isotope - the initial contaminant is incidental to that process. That's how Plutonium was discovered.
And it's not immediately apparent how one would go about shooting down a suitcase or container - and we KNOW your customs officials have been lying down on the job for generations.

But if you would like to know more about nuclear physics and practical applications thereof (to know less would be quite an achievement), I'm sure the diplomatic bag will be big enough for one of our peaceful purposes - or we could just tell you where the latest peaceful purpose was installed :)

you cannot stop a nation from developing Chemical weapons if they wish to do so and the nation of Very Small Island will from now on attempt to develop chemical weapons

you cannot stop a nation from developing Chemical weapons if they wish to do so and the nation of Very Small Island will from now on attempt to develop chemical weapons

Um, this is OOC (Out of Character). We're discussing the uses, implications, and other stuff just related to WMD and their relation to the NS world.

Now I'm going to state my oppnion on NS as a whole.

I'm getting a little tired of what appears to be a prevalent attitude about WMD, that they are the "Be all and end all" weapon of weapons.

It's always nice to see someone think otherwise.
Besides, a couple of nukes, and maybe a gas attack, can make a war more interesting, when used correctly.

I stated quite specifically that it was the FISSION REACTION that turns the cobalt into a less stable isotope - the initial contaminant is incidental to that process. That's how Plutonium was discovered.
And it's not immediately apparent how one would go about shooting down a suitcase or container - and we KNOW your customs officials have been lying down on the job for generations.

But if you would like to know more about nuclear physics and practical applications thereof (to know less would be quite an achievement), I'm sure the diplomatic bag will be big enough for one of our peaceful purposes - or we could just tell you where the latest peaceful purpose was installed :)I'll disregard the obvious cockflapping you included in your post and just ask the one obvious question: What the hell does your poor attempt at verbal bukkake have to do with the topic at hand?

Oh, and take your time replying, I know, typing one-handed takes a while.

There is also a difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
My nation has tactical nuclear weapons, but not strategic ones. Tactical nukes are for use on underground bunkers and tank columns, not cities.

There is also a difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
My nation has tactical nuclear weapons, but not strategic ones. Tactical nukes are for use on underground bunkers and tank columns, not cities.

A brief digression seems to be in order.

I can't speak for RL nations with nukes- not even the US- but I tend to doubt that most strategic nuclear weapons are primarily aimed at cities. They're far more likely to be aimed at enemy (however defined) CBR stockpiles, major military installations, and strategic resource centers. Granted that some of these targets might be located near (or within) population centers, but the populations aren't likely to be primary targets.

That said, the strategic impact of crippling your enemy's economy, infrastructure, and production capabilities by wiping out the workers is very likely a secondary consideration on where to deploy nukes.

Note the italicised words, and the language I used. At a certain level within any political and military decision-making process, the decision-makers must at some point give up a bit of their humanity to consider the use of WMDs. Even on the level of "It's them or us", the prospect of destroying millions (or billions) of fellow humans is not something normal humans are easily capable of. Actively planning for this possibility has to require a level of detachment that is very hard to imagine- for me, at any rate.

Back to the subject at hand.

There is a tendency to view WMDs as panacea weapons: "Drop this baby on the enemy today, and the war'll be over tonight." This is not supported well by the game mechanics (especially the loose rules under which we operate in free-form roleplay), and has little basis in historical RL use of WMD. Since there are no game effects which would help convince nations to avoid using WMD, we (as roleplayers) must invent our own.

In RL, especially during the Cold War, there was a very fuzzy line between tactical and strategic nuclear weapon use. NATO planners seemed to believe that there was a difference between the two, but even they assumed that the first use of tactical nukes would rapidly escalate into full-scale tactical and strategic exchanges with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Soviet doctrine apparently did not see any difference, and supposedly called for strategic responses to tactical nuclear attacks.

The problem- in game terms- with using nukes is built into the game rules: profligate use of nukes and other WMD has no effect on your nation. It is therefore important for us to decide whether or not the use of WMD will be tolerated, and develop some guidelines (entirely voluntary, of course) for where "the line" is and what it takes to cross it.

Another problem rears its ugly head at this point: NS is all free-form RP. We cannot force another player to do anything that player doesn't agree to. During a long-ago thread in the south Pacific, one player kept dropping ICBMs into the ocean near the enemy player. I immediately began posting descriptions of the destruction caused on my shores by the tsunamis which resulted, but no one else paid any attention to what would have been a massive disaster across the entire heimsphere. One player insisted that his fleet (sailing a few dozen kilometers from the impact area) was completely unaffected by the attacks.

The best we can do is encourage careful roleplaying of the use of WMD, and work out mutually agreeable rules-of-thumb with our RP partners.


TEO

[OOC: Sorry for the off-topic post, but glad to see you posting again TEO!]

its nice to see something like this posted again, just a refresher for the older nations but very valuable for the newer nations who are still learning.

"In space, no one can hear you scream." Do you know why that's true? Sound travels by bouncing air molecules around. There's no air molecules in space, therefore no sound. Same principle applies when detonating a nuke in space. There are no air molecules to transport the overpressure wave. As such, almost all the energy from the nuke would be turned into emp energy, unless the nuke was buried in the asteroid. This would provide new problems. The vast majority of asteroids the size you desire are composed not of solid metal but of a conglomeration of space-dust. As such, detonating a nuke inside them would have one of two effects: 1. the asteroid would simply blow apart, and your trillion dollar venture goes "poof!" or 2. the asteroid acts like a cushion, and the area around the nuke vaporizes and very little change in its movement occurs. #1 is actually the less likely of the two. #2 has been proven in laboratory studies, where an 'asteroid' (minaturized, of course) suspended in an electromagnetic field was pegged by a particle travelling uberfast. The conglomeration asteroids simply absorbed the blow, with barely any movement. Fascinating stuff.

Only true when if you "assume" space is a perfect vacuum. Its not. There are atoms enough in space. Just not in the amounts that require sound to be heard.

I personally prefere conventional warfare. It's much more interesting to map out strategy than to simply drop a nuke and be done with it. I do a Star Trek RPG where I play a Fleet Admiral, and I have to map out strategy that involves a Fleet of starships, a Combo-command of Fighters, Bombers and Attackers, and an "army" of 300,000+, and I enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out what forces I need where, how to land the forces, how to resupply them (B^3), and also to determine my overall strategic objective. Much more complex and time consuming than dropping a nuke, but when the jobs' done, it's much more satisfying.