Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

[megaplayboy]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Nukes, damage wise, are primarily a radiation flash/heat fireball/blast overpressure kinda thing. Sometimes I think, vis a vis a gaming standpoint, their effectiveness is a bit overstated. Keep in mind that nuke silos were "hardened" to withstand all but a direct hit from a smaller nuke or a near-miss from a big nuke, and we're talking about hardening in the range of 1,000-5,000+ psi. Now, that hardening basically consists of metres of ferro-concrete (concrete reinforced with metal rebar)--and we can readily derive a DEF/Body value for that in game terms, probably about 25-35 total. knock off about 6-12 body for a near-miss(one or two "hexes" off in whatever megascale value you wish to assign to the explosion), and a 20d6 RKA will still have enough power to destroy the missiles and instantly kill the crew.

 

Now, we know what the theoretical maximum overpressure resistance is for a "super material" which actually exists, carbon nanotubes. Assuming you could actually build something largescale which came close to its maximum potential, you could have, say, a starship hull which would resist all but a direct hit by a large nuke(at least, pressure-wise, not as sure about temperature/heat resistance).

[megaplayboy]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

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.

 

The Soviets had a few SS-18s fitted with 25 MT city-killers at some point in time. There was a persistent rumor that a 100 MT weapon was sitting somewhere in East Berlin and would be detonated if the NATO forces ever started pushing east.

[Maur]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Now' date=' we know what the theoretical maximum overpressure resistance is for a "super material" which actually exists, carbon nanotubes. Assuming you could actually build something largescale which came close to its maximum potential, you could have, say, a starship hull which would resist all but a direct hit by a large nuke(at least, pressure-wise, not as sure about temperature/heat resistance).[/quote']

 

A nuke in space shouldn't be able to generate the pressures that it does inside an atmosphere as there is nothing to push out on or have rush back in when the pressure wave collapses.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

A nuke in space shouldn't be able to generate the pressures that it does inside an atmosphere as there is nothing to push out on or have rush back in when the pressure wave collapses.

 

Well, for that matter, wouldn't the heat and radiation dissipate more rapidly too?

 

oops, actually the opposite is true, you have further and faster heat and radiation propagation. I still think a high-end supermaterial would be pretty resistant at a surprisingly close range. I mean, battleships were exposed to nuclear blasts pretty much right next to ground zero, and still stayed afloat. I think a nuke hit would have to be point blank or almost right next to a well-armored ship in order to score a "kill".

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Well, for that matter, wouldn't the heat and radiation dissipate more rapidly too?

 

oops, actually the opposite is true, you have further and faster heat and radiation propagation. I still think a high-end supermaterial would be pretty resistant at a surprisingly close range. I mean, battleships were exposed to nuclear blasts pretty much right next to ground zero, and still stayed afloat. I think a nuke hit would have to be point blank or almost right next to a well-armored ship in order to score a "kill".

 

 

Battleships probably didn't sink only because they were atop ground zero, wich was placed below water surface.

 

And for space, the difference in speed of radiation propagation isn't really relevant in a macroscopic scale, because it is still very near the speed of light, even in the atmosphere. But the heat generated would probably be more important in space as no energy would be "wasted" in generating the blast effect. If I were a GM having to take a decision on this, I would say that a nuke in space would probably do roughly the same amout of damages than an atmospheric, underground or underwater nuclear explosion.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

A nuke in space shouldn't be able to generate the pressures that it does inside an atmosphere as there is nothing to push out on or have rush back in when the pressure wave collapses.

Correct!

 

From

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

 

George William Herbert says a nuke going off on Terra has most of the x-ray emission is absorbed by the atmosphere, and is transformed into the first fireball and the blast wave. There ain't no atmosphere in space so the nuclear explosion is light on blast and heavy on x-rays. In fact, almost 90% of the bomb energy will appear as x-rays behaving as if they are from a point source (specifically 80% soft X-rays and 10% gamma), and subject to the good old inverse square law (i.e., the intensity will fall off very quickly with range). The remaining 10% will be neutrons. There won't be any EMP, unless there is a Terra strength magnetic field and a tenuous atmosphere present.

[CorPse]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Dang...

 

I've never thought about any of this...

 

Thanks for the quicky science lesson.

[Tigereye]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Great discussion of high-energy physics insanity, guys.

 

I would add to the normal attack powers, also, a PRE attack from the sight of the bomb itself; the SFX are so stunning as to probably cause a typical human being to go running off or freezing in terror, even if they weren't hurt by the blast at all. The sight of all the injured would also cause PRE effects. Many people in presence of the multimegaton tests of the 50s report being terrified by these blasts even tens of miles away. (The only reason why some did not run is that there was nowhere on a ship or tiny atoll to run to.)

 

A tactical atomic weapon would have a smaller PRE effect than the big megaweapons. Russians who witnessed the Bikini Atoll tests (which were 20-kiloton Nagasaki-scale blasts) from a long distance were unimpressed. Castle Bravo, the first solid-fueled thermonuclear weapon, had its yield badly underestimated, ran away to 12.5 megatons, and therefore had many involuntary close-up eyewitnesses. Witnesses had a feeling of it going on and on, of utter isolation and helplessness in its presence. Of course, a 20-mile high mushroom cloud would probably do that...

 

In space, however, this would be a bit smaller of a PRE attack, because the fireball pulses once with no mushroom cloud, leaving only a cooling ball of radioactive plasma. In an upper atmosphere, in fact, a nuke can actually be quite pretty, if deadly- a so-called "rainbow bomb" effect happens in an already ionized environment. Those in the know, however, may still react negatively if they are near the target.

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Dang...

 

I've never thought about any of this...

 

Thanks for the quicky science lesson.

 

Great discussion of high-energy physics insanity' date=' guys. [/quote']

 

My pleasure!

 

 

I would add to the normal attack powers' date=' also, a PRE attack from the sight of the bomb itself [/quote']

 

True, but probably not systematic, as to be worth some Ca. But then again...

 

I'd also add, as we're in it, a flash attack, as people who look directly at the burst are generally blinded for a couple of minutes, and possibly for hours.

 

 

In space' date=' however, this would be a bit smaller of a PRE attack, because the fireball pulses once with no mushroom cloud, leaving only a cooling ball of radioactive plasma. In an upper atmosphere, in fact, a nuke can actually be quite pretty, if deadly- a so-called "rainbow bomb" effect happens in an already ionized environment. Those in the know, however, may still react negatively if they are near the target.[/quote']

 

True. I'd even cancel any PRE attack in space or high atmosphere, because the immensity of a three dimensional space without any "landscape" to refer to would probably make the burst just look like a light ball...

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I would add to the normal attack powers' date=' also, a PRE attack from the sight of the bomb itself; the SFX are so stunning as to probably cause a typical human being to go running off or freezing in terror, even if they weren't hurt by the blast at all. The sight of all the injured would also cause PRE effects.[/quote']

Absolutely. Almost anybody seeing the trademark mushroom cloud will be running away as fast as they can with soiled underwear. And there is plenty of PRE attack in the sight of a silhouette of a victim burned into a concrete wall, victim vaporized leaving only a shadow. Not to mention screaming victims with third-degree burns and their melted eyeballs running down their face.

 

In space' date=' however, this would be a bit smaller of a PRE attack, because the fireball pulses once with no mushroom cloud, leaving only a cooling ball of radioactive plasma. [/quote']

Also true. Minus the cooling ball.

 

From http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#nuke. A description of a space born nuclear detonation and the effect it will have on a nearby spacecraft.

 

First off, the weapon itself. A nuclear explosion in space, will look pretty much like a Very Very Bright flashbulb going off. The effects are instantaneous or nearly so. There is no fireball. The gaseous remains of the weapon may be incandescent, but they are also expanding at about a thousand kilometers per second, so one frame after detonation they will have dissipated to the point of invisibility. Just a flash.

 

The effects on the ship itself, those are a bit more visible. If you're getting impulsive shock damage, you will by definition see hot gas boiling off from the surface. Again, the effect is instantaneous, but this time the vapor will expand at maybe one kilometer per second, so depending on the scale you might be able to see some of this action. But don't blink; it will be quick.

 

Next is spallation - shocks will bounce back and forth through the skin of the target, probably tearing chunks off both sides. Some of these may come off at mere hundreds of meters per second. And they will be hot, red- or maybe even white-hot depending on the material.

 

 

To envision the appearance of this part, a thought experiment. Or, heck, go ahead and actually perform it. Start with a big piece of sheet metal, covered in a fine layer of flour and glitter. Shine a spotlight on it, in an otherwise-dark room. Then whack the thing with a sledgehammer, hard enough for the recoil to knock the flour and glitter into the air.

 

The haze of brightly-lit flour is your vaporized hull material, and the bits of glitter are the spallation. Scale up the velocities as needed, and ignore the bit where air resistance and gravity brings everything to a halt.

 

Next, the exposed hull is going to be quite hot, probably close to the melting point. So, dull red even for aluminum, brilliant white for steel or titanium or most ceramics or composites. The seriously hot layer will only be a millimeter or so thick, so it can cool fairly quickly - a second or two for a thick metallic hull that can cool by internal conduction, possibly as long as a minute for something thin and/or insulating that has to cool by radiation.

 

After this, if the shock is strong enough, the hull is going to be materially deformed. For this, take the sledgehammer from your last thought experiment and give a whack to some tin cans. Depending on how hard you hit them, and whether they are full or empty, you can get effects ranging from mild denting at weak points, crushing and tearing, all the way to complete obliteration with bits of tin-can remnant and tin-can contents splattered across the landscape.

 

Again, this will be much faster in reality than in the thought experiment. And note that a spacecraft will have many weak points to be dented, fragile bits to be torn off, and they all get hit at once. If the hull is of isogrid construction, which is pretty common, you might see an intact triangular lattice with shallow dents in between. Bits of antenna and whatnot, tumbling away.

 

Finally, secondary effects. Part of your ship is likely to be pressurized, either habitat space or propellant tank. Coolant and drinking water and whatnot, as well. With serious damage, that stuff is going to vent to space. You can probably see this happening (air and water and some propellants will freeze into snow as they escape, BTW). You'll also see the reaction force try to tumble the spacecraft, and if the spacecraft's attitude control systems are working you'll see them try to fight back.

 

You might see fires, if reactive materials are escaping. But not convection flames, of course. Diffuse jets of flame, or possibly surface reactions. Maybe secondary explosions if concentrations of reactive gasses are building up in enclosed (more or less) spaces.

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Absolutely. Almost anybody seeing the trademark mushroom cloud will be running away as fast as they can with soiled underwear. And there is plenty of PRE attack in the sight of a silhouette of a victim burned into a concrete wall' date=' victim vaporized leaving only a shadow. Not to mention screaming victims with third-degree burns and their melted eyeballs running down their face.

 

 

Also true. Minus the cooling ball.

 

From http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#nuke. A description of a space born nuclear detonation and the effect it will have on a nearby spacecraft.

 

First off, the weapon itself. A nuclear explosion in space, will look pretty much like a Very Very Bright flashbulb going off. The effects are instantaneous or nearly so. There is no fireball. The gaseous remains of the weapon may be incandescent, but they are also expanding at about a thousand kilometers per second, so one frame after detonation they will have dissipated to the point of invisibility. Just a flash.

 

The effects on the ship itself, those are a bit more visible. If you're getting impulsive shock damage, you will by definition see hot gas boiling off from the surface. Again, the effect is instantaneous, but this time the vapor will expand at maybe one kilometer per second, so depending on the scale you might be able to see some of this action. But don't blink; it will be quick.

 

Next is spallation - shocks will bounce back and forth through the skin of the target, probably tearing chunks off both sides. Some of these may come off at mere hundreds of meters per second. And they will be hot, red- or maybe even white-hot depending on the material.

 

 

To envision the appearance of this part, a thought experiment. Or, heck, go ahead and actually perform it. Start with a big piece of sheet metal, covered in a fine layer of flour and glitter. Shine a spotlight on it, in an otherwise-dark room. Then whack the thing with a sledgehammer, hard enough for the recoil to knock the flour and glitter into the air.

 

The haze of brightly-lit flour is your vaporized hull material, and the bits of glitter are the spallation. Scale up the velocities as needed, and ignore the bit where air resistance and gravity brings everything to a halt.

 

Next, the exposed hull is going to be quite hot, probably close to the melting point. So, dull red even for aluminum, brilliant white for steel or titanium or most ceramics or composites. The seriously hot layer will only be a millimeter or so thick, so it can cool fairly quickly - a second or two for a thick metallic hull that can cool by internal conduction, possibly as long as a minute for something thin and/or insulating that has to cool by radiation.

 

After this, if the shock is strong enough, the hull is going to be materially deformed. For this, take the sledgehammer from your last thought experiment and give a whack to some tin cans. Depending on how hard you hit them, and whether they are full or empty, you can get effects ranging from mild denting at weak points, crushing and tearing, all the way to complete obliteration with bits of tin-can remnant and tin-can contents splattered across the landscape.

 

Again, this will be much faster in reality than in the thought experiment. And note that a spacecraft will have many weak points to be dented, fragile bits to be torn off, and they all get hit at once. If the hull is of isogrid construction, which is pretty common, you might see an intact triangular lattice with shallow dents in between. Bits of antenna and whatnot, tumbling away.

 

Finally, secondary effects. Part of your ship is likely to be pressurized, either habitat space or propellant tank. Coolant and drinking water and whatnot, as well. With serious damage, that stuff is going to vent to space. You can probably see this happening (air and water and some propellants will freeze into snow as they escape, BTW). You'll also see the reaction force try to tumble the spacecraft, and if the spacecraft's attitude control systems are working you'll see them try to fight back.

 

You might see fires, if reactive materials are escaping. But not convection flames, of course. Diffuse jets of flame, or possibly surface reactions. Maybe secondary explosions if concentrations of reactive gasses are building up in enclosed (more or less) spaces.

 

 

 

Cool Nyrath! You managed to learn me something about nukes, wich is both cool and difficult! Repped (even though you might not need it...). Thanks.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I suppose a related topic would be how to construct a combat spacecraft in such a way as to maximize its survivability against a nuclear explosion...

 

maybe a thick ablative heat shielding(like the shuttle tiles, only amplified quite a bit) over a super-strong hull materal, then radiation shielding material, then more super-strong hull material? Then just sealed compartments and structural reinforcements and design features?

[Beast]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

there is a picture of test baker which was a subsurface blast

she was intact after both blasts but sank due to leakage 5 days later from the underwater blast

had the crew survived they might have kept her afloat

 

links

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/japan/battleships/nagato_page_1.htm

bottom of the page is a picture of her after being nuked

 

test Baker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Sunk_during_test_Baker.2C_25_July_1946

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crossroads_baker_explosion.jpg

 

some where I heard of 1 of the pictures of test baker you can see 1/2 a ship sticking out of the dome of water/steam that is suppose to be Nagato

the dome is 6000' high so that would put Nagato about 2500' in the air or there abouts

 

 

 

Battleships probably didn't sink only because they were atop ground zero, wich was placed below water surface.

 

And for space, the difference in speed of radiation propagation isn't really relevant in a macroscopic scale, because it is still very near the speed of light, even in the atmosphere. But the heat generated would probably be more important in space as no energy would be "wasted" in generating the blast effect. If I were a GM having to take a decision on this, I would say that a nuke in space would probably do roughly the same amout of damages than an atmospheric, underground or underwater nuclear explosion.

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I suppose a related topic would be how to construct a combat spacecraft in such a way as to maximize its survivability against a nuclear explosion...

 

maybe a thick ablative heat shielding(like the shuttle tiles, only amplified quite a bit) over a super-strong hull materal, then radiation shielding material, then more super-strong hull material? Then just sealed compartments and structural reinforcements and design features?

 

It would be interesting to think more thouroughly about this. Actually, though, with existing or known near future materials, there is probably no way for a space ship to survive a direct hit from a nuke (at least, from what I learned by Nyrath and his links). Anyway, a fusion bomb use the same process than a star, so I don't see how we could realistically build some material that could survive those conditions...

 

 

there is a picture of test baker which was a subsurface blast

she was intact after both blasts but sank due to leakage 5 days later from the underwater blast

had the crew survived they might have kept her afloat

 

links

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/japan/battleships/nagato_page_1.htm

bottom of the page is a picture of her after being nuked

 

test Baker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Sunk_during_test_Baker.2C_25_July_1946

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crossroads_baker_explosion.jpg

 

some where I heard of 1 of the pictures of test baker you can see 1/2 a ship sticking out of the dome of water/steam that is suppose to be Nagato

the dome is 6000' high so that would put Nagato about 2500' in the air or there abouts

 

True, but it doesn't change the fact that it probably wouldn't have survived an air or a direct burst. In fact, I know for sure that tactical nukes were planned to be used against carriers to sink them in one shot. Moreover, an hypothetical crew in the baker test would have suffered sever damages from fallouts, something like 50% mortality after 48 hours. And survivors could probably not work very well either...

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Actually' date=' though, with existing or known near future materials, there is probably no way for a space ship to survive a direct hit from a nuke.[/quote']

Yes, very true.

However, in space, the damage caused by a nuclear weapon falls off very rapidly as the range increases. A weapon that will vaporize a spacecraft with a direct hit will probably only discolor the spacecraft's paint job at a range of a kilometer. And ships can engage in combat at ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

 

About this point somebody brings up "point defense," which are anti-missile guns and anti-missile missiles.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3y.html#pointdefense

Shortly thereafter the "Purple-Green" "laser point defense vs. incoming missile" debate breaks out (go to above link and scroll down to picture of Drazi leader).

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Yes, very true.

However, in space, the damage caused by a nuclear weapon falls off very rapidly as the range increases. A weapon that will vaporize a spacecraft with a direct hit will probably only discolor the spacecraft's paint job at a range of a kilometer. And ships can engage in combat at ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

 

About this point somebody brings up "point defense," which are anti-missile guns and anti-missile missiles.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3y.html#pointdefense

Shortly thereafter the "Purple-Green" "laser point defense vs. incoming missile" debate breaks out (go to above link and scroll down to picture of Drazi leader).

 

 

One way to overcome the point defense and manage to hit directly with a missile could be to launch missiles from small fighters who could get close enough to fire some missiles without them all being wiped out before impact. Indeed, even though a fighter is not invulnerable and can be shot down, it sure can evade some attacks aimed at it without necessarly missing the target, as the missile it carries isn't launched yet.

 

One could also argue that fighters, smaller and more manouverable, could get more easily through the target ship's point defenses. So, if my logic stands, the more important part of a battle would be the engagement between the two fighter squadrons, the winning side then being able to strike at the target's main ships with its nukes.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

One way to overcome the point defense and manage to hit directly with a missile could be to launch missiles from small fighters who could get close enough to fire some missiles without them all being wiped out before impact. Indeed, even though a fighter is not invulnerable and can be shot down, it sure can evade some attacks aimed at it without necessarly missing the target, as the missile it carries isn't launched yet.

 

One could also argue that fighters, smaller and more manouverable, could get more easily through the target ship's point defenses. So, if my logic stands, the more important part of a battle would be the engagement between the two fighter squadrons, the winning side then being able to strike at the target's main ships with its nukes.

I hate to pour cold water on this idea, but if the idea is to maneuver around hostile point defense fire, a missile bus could do a much better job than a manned fighter. For one thing, the bus could perform multiple gravity maneuvers that would turn a human pilot into a thin layer of bloody pulp on the rear of the cockpit. And a computer pilot would have a reaction speed several million times as fast as any human.

 

The sad fact of the matter is that from a scientific standpoint manned fighters make no sense scientifically, militarily, or economically.

 

But we must have them due to Burnside's Zeroth Law

[Beast]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

you would be better off with a nuke pumped X-ray laser system

you get a longer stand off range to evade point defence systems

and can engage multiple targets

[Doc]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I hate to pour cold water on this idea, but if the idea is to maneuver around hostile point defense fire, a missile bus could do a much better job than a manned fighter. For one thing, the bus could perform multiple gravity maneuvers that would turn a human pilot into a thin layer of bloody pulp on the rear of the cockpit. And a computer pilot would have a reaction speed several million times as fast as any human.

 

The sad fact of the matter is that from a scientific standpoint manned fighters make no sense scientifically, militarily, or economically.

 

But we must have them due to Burnside's Zeroth Law

 

 

 

Humm. It seems you're right on this, Nyrath... But where do we put the limit? If a computer-controlled fighter is a better option than a manned one, well, why don't we automatise all of the armed forces? I mean, a ground robot fighter would also probably be more efficient than human beings. Where is the line? Won't future wars engage any humans at all? It's a pretty dark perspective, having to be subjected to wars we totally not controle... But then again, is it really different than real life...? Lots of questions.

 

And about Beast's suggestion, well, it's choosing to use a laser instead of a nuke to smash your opponents. It's a logical choice, but it goes out of this thread theme...

[Kristopher]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I hate to pour cold water on this idea, but if the idea is to maneuver around hostile point defense fire, a missile bus could do a much better job than a manned fighter. For one thing, the bus could perform multiple gravity maneuvers that would turn a human pilot into a thin layer of bloody pulp on the rear of the cockpit. And a computer pilot would have a reaction speed several million times as fast as any human.

 

The sad fact of the matter is that from a scientific standpoint manned fighters make no sense scientifically, militarily, or economically.

 

But we must have them due to Burnside's Zeroth Law

 

We've got a long way to go before I'd be comfortable taking a human out of the decision-making loop.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

We've got a long way to go before I'd be comfortable taking a human out of the decision-making loop.

Well, true, but you take a human out of the decision-making loop every time a soldier fires a bullet. Once the bullet is in flight, humans are out of the loop.

 

The same logic applies to launching a robot fighter with a load of missiles with multiple warheads.

 

But this is moot since Burnside's Law applies to all SF RPGs, so there will be fighters.

[Kristopher]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

Well, true, but you take a human out of the decision-making loop every time a soldier fires a bullet. Once the bullet is in flight, humans are out of the loop.

 

The same logic applies to launching a robot fighter with a load of missiles with multiple warheads.

 

But this is moot since Burnside's Law applies to all SF RPGs, so there will be fighters.

 

I am unfamilar with this "law", and really not concerned with it.

[Nyrath]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

I am unfamilar with this "law"' date=' and really not concerned with it.[/quote']

That's fine.

 

For any other readers, for the record, Burnside's Zeroth Law of space combat states that Science fiction fans relate more to human beings than to silicon chips. That is, while it might make more logical sense in your SF novel or SF RPG to have an interplanetary battle waged between groups of computer controlled spacecraft, it would be infinitely more boring than a battle between groups of human crewed spacecraft.

 

This is why in Battlestar Galactica you see sweating human beings in their Vipers, instead of scenes of control computers blinking their lights and whirring their disk drives.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

 

This is why in Battlestar Galactica you see sweating human beings in their Vipers, instead of scenes of control computers blinking their lights and whirring their disk drives.

 

Actually, the pilot episode set up a somewhat plausible explanation for why no automated fighters--the more advanced "fly by wire" Vipers were all infected by a Cylon computer "virus" and were basically useless, and only the old school, non-networked fighters were effective.

[Maur]

Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads

 

And then they broke the plausibility by having the Cylons hack into Galactica while her onboard systems were networked to more quickly calculate an FTL jump. I'm sorry, but just because you network a bunch of systems doesn't make them vulnerable to outside attacks (unless the Cylons can inject signals into the interconnecting cables of the system).