Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Where do you get that? The official position of the US is "no first use". That might be a open to a little fudging' date=' as in the US might use a nuke against a country that launched a large-scale chemical attack, but I highly doubt China would sit back and take that either.[/quote']

 

 

US has a nuclear policy to strike first.

 

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Publication 3-12, Final Coordination (2), 15 march 2005

 

I found it on the Pentagon Website.

 

 

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

US has a nuclear policy to strike first.

 

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Publication 3-12, Final Coordination (2), 15 march 2005

 

I found it on the Pentagon Website.

 

 

 

Well, this has changed in the last couple years then. Your particular choice of words here is pretty loaded, though. US nuclear policy is not to strike first. It allows for a preemptive strike against a credible threat of a WMD attack. There's a pretty good bit of in-between in there.

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Your particular choice of words here is pretty loaded' date=' though. [/quote']

 

Well, everything is a question of perceptions, particularly politics. But, hey, that's why is so fun to talk about it a beer in hand!

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

BTW: Let's do a neutron bomb too. A neutron bomb is a fusion bomb with it's outer packet of plutonium removed' date=' so there's no fusion.[/quote']

 

???

 

My understanding was that a thermonuke runs fission-fusion-fisson: trigger to main bomb to plutonium blanket. The neutron pulse from the fusion reaction is largely used up fissioning the outer plutonium without it needing to be first compressed to critical mass. Or do I have that wrong?

I'm no expert, but I believe that you both have it partially correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

 

A standard fusion bomb has a jacket of something to contain the neutrons, so as to allow more of the fusion fuel to fuse. I suppose plutonium would work. If you remove the jacket, the intensity of the "bang" is reduced, but the flood of deadly neutrons is increased. Thus the enhanced radiation weapon is less useful for destroying buildings but just the thing for killing soldiers.

 

Apparently it is possible for an enhanced radiation weapon to just be fission-fusion instead of fission-fusion-fission.

 

But again I am no expert.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

As for the rest of the discussion' date=' it is now very unusual that nuclear warheads have yields over 1MT, and those are pretty rare. The reason is that with MIRVs, it is easier to hit a single target with more than one medium yield warhead (generally, about 500KT).[/quote']

Another reason is that the blast is more or less spherical. If you have a 1MT blast, all the energy that is in the upper part of the sphere is wasted. If you took that same megaton and divided it into ten 100KT weapons, each would have a smaller blast radius and less of the energy would be wasted going upward. You drop the ten weapons in a pattern with a tiny amount of overlap.

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Well' date=' this has changed in the last couple years then. Your particular choice of words here is pretty loaded, though. US nuclear policy is not to strike first. It allows for a preemptive strike against a credible threat of a WMD attack. There's a pretty good bit of in-between in there.[/quote']

 

Well, that's pretty scary: seeing the words nuclear, preemptive strike, credible threat, and WMD in the same sentence.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

US policy has indicated a willingness to strike first as long as I've been alive. Policy was to use Tac-Nukes on Russian armour formations if they broke through central Germany before REFORGER could work, had the Cold War ever turned hot.

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Hey, the first one was so much fun, I'm just about ready for Cold War II?

 

How about you?

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Hey' date=' the first one was so much fun, I'm just about ready for [b']Cold War II[/b]?

 

How about you?

 

Sure! I have posted a campaign suggested yesterday in a futurist alternate history where Soviet Union didn't crash. You can look at it in "Other genres".

 

But just to continue in the discution about the gritty reality, I'd specify that nuclear war isn't a threat that desapeared with the Soviets... Look at what's going out with Putin's Russia right now...

 

And now, let's role play to forget a little bit about our doom!

[Vestnik]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Guys, speaking as a long-time resident of Russia, I can say that Putin is a hugely, hugely popular president who could easily become president-for-life if he wanted to. The fact that he's not doing so should tell you something.

 

"Putin's Russia" is a meme spun by interested--and easily identifiable--parties in an attempt to influence Western opinion in their favor. Please, please, don't fall for it. Don't be suckers.

EDIT -- speaking of which, I got a call from my dad a couple of weeks ago about how he had just seen Kasparov on Larry King or something, and Kasparov had claimed that he had no popularity in Russia because he wasn't given media access. I received this call at the exact same time as I was listening to Kasparov being interviewed on Russian radio. *sigh* (It amazes me that no one ever calls Kasparov on this obvious lie, since anybody who bothers can go to youtube and see him being interviewed on Russian TV,)

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Guys, speaking as a long-time resident of Russia, I can say that Putin is a hugely, hugely popular president who could easily become president-for-life if he wanted to. The fact that he's not doing so should tell you something.

 

"Putin's Russia" is a meme spun by interested--and easily identifiable--parties in an attempt to influence Western opinion in their favor. Please, please, don't fall for it. Don't be suckers.

EDIT -- speaking of which, I got a call from my dad a couple of weeks ago about how he had just seen Kasparov on Larry King or something, and Kasparov had claimed that he had no popularity in Russia because he wasn't given media access. I received this call at the exact same time as I was listening to Kasparov being interviewed on Russian radio. *sigh* (It amazes me that no one ever calls Kasparov on this obvious lie, since anybody who bothers can go to youtube and see him being interviewed on Russian TV,)

 

Well, whatever's going on with Putin doesn't mean Russia and NATO won't fight over opposing geostrategical interests...

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

One last thing: I'm sorry to have talked this much about politics, warfare, strategics and others, as this should besically be a Hero rpg forum, but I just have this Total Psychological Limitation: can't resist debating over political issues...

 

Sorry guys!

[Vestnik]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Well' date=' whatever's going on with Putin doesn't mean Russia and NATO won't fight over opposing geostrategical interests...[/quote']

 

True. I'm tempted to engage on a brief rant on NATO expansion, but as you say this is not the place. Back to the fate of poor Joe!

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I was flipping through the GURPS Ogre for the Ogre/GEV setting I hope to create... and the biggest weapon on the battlefield is a 100 KT Cruise Missile, I should look back up in the thread and see what kind of damage that would do. (A lot to be sure.)

 

As far as Putin... I think there are some worrisome things going on however you slice it. Whenever I hear this idea of a strong Russia that seems to be promulgated there, it does make me worry. Just because the guy is popular doesn't mean that his actions and the actions of his party aren't going to cause geopolitical problems for Europe and the US in the days to come.

 

And it's hard to believe that the government doesn't have something to do with the fact that high-profile journalists are getting murdered on a semi-regular basis.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I was flipping through the GURPS Ogre for the Ogre/GEV setting I hope to create... and the biggest weapon on the battlefield is a 100 KT Cruise Missile' date=' I should look back up in the thread and see what kind of damage that would do. (A lot to be sure.)[/quote']

The Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb was about 15 KT, Nagasaki "Fat Man" was about 21 KT, the W76 warhead is about 100 KT, a "city killer" is about 25 MT.

 

I have a little table here:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#boom

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

The Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb was about 15 KT' date=' Nagasaki "Fat Man" was about 21 KT, the W76 warhead is about 100 KT, a "city killer" is about 25 MT.

 

I have a little table here:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#boom

 

Very cool chart...

 

Care to speculate on the damage of a 100KT device in game terms?

 

I leave that open to anyone else, of course.

[Vestnik]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

 

And it's hard to believe that the government doesn't have something to do with the fact that high-profile journalists are getting murdered on a semi-regular basis.

 

This is not the place to discuss it, but the fact is that twice as many journalists were murdered in Russia under Yeltsin as under Putin. In fact, before the murder of Politkovskaya last year, the most high-profile journalist in Russia to be murdered was the editor of Forbes Russia, Paul Klebnikov. However, not much was made of this because Klebnikov was very, very pro-Putin, so it could not be spun as an act of the "Putin regime."

 

Personally I think Politkovskaya was killed as a provocation, though I have no evidence for this other than that it hurt Putin significantly and he had nothing to gain from it. (It was also suspiciously timed for right when he was heading a major international event.) She wrote for a quasi-tabloid in Russia that is read mostly by extreme liberals and has no influence on Russian politics. It would be like Bush killing Noam Chomsky. There is also the evidence of the so-called "Nevzlin plan," Nevzlin being a Yukos guy wanted for murder now living in Israel, that circulated on the Russian Internet a couple of years ago, which called specifically to kill Politkovskaya, by name, in order to attack Putin. But that was a document on the Internet, so who knows.

 

OK, I said I wasn;t going to go on about this but I did. The buck stops here.

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

Anybody willing to spec out a 100KT Nuclear Cruise Missile?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

18d6 RKA, all appropriate advantages and limitations.

[FireTiger]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

The earliest version of an atomic-type weapon that I can find in the books that I own appears in the original Golden Age of Champions on page 86 (Firebird Ltd. 1985).

 

If folks will bear with me, here is my attempt to update that oddly-named device to the 5th edition rules (borrowing the common modifiers from Mr. Long's nuclear bomb article from Hero System Almanac #2, Digital Hero #10, and the Equipment Guide).

 

KABOOM (KR-36-ite Anti-personnel Bomb Of Outrageous Magnitude)

 

Common Advatanges: Trigger (Must Make Physical Contact with an Object and be Moving at Terminal Velocity [30"/segment]) (+¼), Explosion (½); Total = (+¾).

Common Limitations: OAF Bulky (-1½), 1 Charge Which Never Recovers and Destroys Bomb (-4), No Range (-½), Requires a Systems Operation Roll (-½); Total: (-6½)

 

Effect 1 — Concussion: 50d6 EB (vs PD) (250 pts), Common Advantages (+¾), Active Cost = 437 pts; Common Limitations (-6½), Only Does Knockback (-2); Total Limitations (-8½), Real Cost = 46 pts.

 

Effect 2 — Fireball: 30d6 EB (vs ED, Fire) (150 pts), Common Advantages (+¾), Active Cost = 262 pts; Common Limitations (-6½), Real Cost = 35 pts.

 

Effect 3 — Flash: 10d6 Flash (vs Sight & Radio Groups) (55 pts), Common Advantages (+¾), Active Cost = 96 pts; Common Limitations (-6½), Real Cost = 13 pts.

 

Effect 4 — Radiation (1): 10d6 RKA (vs ED) (150 pts), Common Advantages (+¾), NND (defenses are Force Field, Appropriate Life Support, Desolidification, or Power Defense) (+1), Does Body (+1); Total Advantages (+2¾), Active Cost = 562 pts; Common Limitations (-6½), Real Cost = 75 pts.

 

Effect 5 — Radiation (2): 2d6 RKA (vs ED) (30 pts), Common Advantages (+¾), NND (defense is not being desolid) (+1), Does Body (+1); Total Advantages (+2¾), Active Cost = 112 pts; Common Limitations (-6½), Real Cost = 15 pts.

 

Total Active Cost = 1,469 points; Total Real Cost = 184 points.

 

Something like this could represent a very small yield weapon, though not as realistically as a toned-down nuke from Mr. Long's article. I know this is pretty much , but I thought I'd put it up here in case someone might find it useful.

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

T a "city killer" is about 25 MT.

 

 

The 25MT bomb was the strongest US engine ever built. It was never tested due to its awfull yeild and is not anymore in service since the end of the 70s. As I has told, it is very rare to have yields over 1MT by those days.

 

Those big bombs had for primary objectives missile silos and hardened underground command centers. A 500KT bomb is sufficient to rase any city.

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Common Advatanges: Trigger (Must Make Physical Contact with an Object and be Moving at Terminal Velocity [30"/segment]) (+¼)' date=' Explosion (½); Total = (+¾). [/quote']

 

 

This limitation wouldn't apply to a nuke, as it is generally set to explode in altitude (about 1km high for a city being the target) in order to expand its range of destruction.

 

This isn't true, though, for high yield devices aimed at underground facilities, wich are made to touch the ground in order to make a cratter of the targetted installations.

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

18d6 RKA' date=' all appropriate advantages and limitations.[/quote']

 

Cool... thanks C.O.

[FireTiger]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

This limitation wouldn't apply to a nuke, as it is generally set to explode in altitude (about 1km high for a city being the target) in order to expand its range of destruction.

 

This isn't true, though, for high yield devices aimed at underground facilities, wich are made to touch the ground in order to make a cratter of the targetted installations.

 

The original partial write-up for this weapon was intended to be placed in the early stages of WWII and specifically listed the ground burst Trigger. True, building a more modern version of it would probably add an air burst Trigger.

 

I just fleshed-out the mechanics for the original write-up.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

The 25MT bomb was the strongest US engine ever built. It was never tested due to its awfull yeild and is not anymore in service since the end of the 70s. As I has told, it is very rare to have yields over 1MT by those days.

 

Those big bombs had for primary objectives missile silos and hardened underground command centers. A 500KT bomb is sufficient to rase any city.

No, I didn't mean to imply that any nation ever had 25 MT weapons in their inventory.

 

A 500 KT bomb will raze a city, but if you want to guarantee the transformation of a city into a glowing crater and you don't care about minor trivialities like the efficient use of your stock of plutonium, a city killer will do the job.