106 réponses à ce sujet

[Novak]

I really have no idea why the OP made this thread, but the answer to the question is quite simple. Any advanced civ could very easily shut down any vectors used to deliver a nuclear pay load.

 

Like no other thread on this forum isn't complete bogus 

[Helios969]

In a universe where you can install a mass effect engine onto an asteroid and accelerate it many times the speed of light, nukes are like BB's.  Kinetic energy is a b*tch.

[Hair Serious Business]

I thought this was going to be Kim Jong Un thread made by Kim Jong Un on how Kim Jong Un discovered internet and how Kim Jong Un googled Kim Jong Un and discovered 'Kim Jong Un x Barack Obama' shipping and he discovered it is my OTP and how I gave link to 'Kim Jong Un x Barack Obama' fanfiction long time ago here on BNS and now Kim Jong wishes to tell us to nuke entire BNS so no one ever finds that old thread in where I left link to that fanfic.

 

Still despite that this thread is very Kim Jong Un thread.

[CrimsonN7]

I thought this was going to be Kim Jong Un thread made by Kim Jong Un

 

Beat me to it, boo urns.

 

[I Am Robot]

Like no other thread on this forum isn't complete bogus 

Alright you got me.

[Nattfare]

It still wouldn't defeat the emus.
 

[Novak]

Alright you got me.

 

I think I got myself that's a double negative 

[HSomCokeSniper]

Can we romance the nuke?

 

Slim Pickens, is that you?

 

[Novak]

Slim Pickens, is that you?

 

 

Well he loves his nukes.

[capn233]

Pre-reaper war, they were banned for use on garden worlds, and were probably in relatively limited supply.  You get to disarm an alliance nuke in ME1 though.

 

In space the nukes are like giant flashbulbs anyway so they aren't so great.  That is unless you can deliver them directly to the target.  Maybe the missiles  aren't economic, depending on how many you need to get past GARDIAN like systems to ensure a hit.  Engineering a projectile to be launched via mass accelerator might be superior; but again, maybe the economics don't work out relative to simply firing a few solid metal slugs.  Or they really can't g harden a warhead for mass accelerator.

 

Probably the devs and writers just didn't want them to be in this universe.

[Novak]

Pre-reaper war, they were banned for use on garden worlds, and were probably in relatively limited supply.  You get to disarm an alliance nuke in ME1 though.

 

In space the nukes are like giant flashbulbs anyway so they aren't so great.  That is unless you can deliver them directly to the target.  Maybe the missiles  aren't economic, depending on how many you need to get past GUARDIAN like systems to ensure a hit.  Engineering a projectile to be launched via mass accelerator might be superior; but again, maybe the economics don't work out relative to simply firing a few solid metal slugs.  Or they really can't g harden a warhead for mass accelerator.

 

Probably the devs and writers just didn't want them to be in this universe.

 

Last point was probably right on target. Anyway, the biggest problem is as you said the delivery. I mean you could make a missile go super fast in space. I was thinking more along the lines of dropping them on reapers deployed on planets.  

[Novak]

I was thinking Muslims would be his primary focus. Just goes to show how diverse his opinions are when it comes to nuking things.

I really hope they don't elect that guy.

 

Here's the problem with trump (okay there are many but this is the main one) if americans do decide to elect that guy one would assume it's strictly their business. The thing is, it's really not. The US is such a powerful country that this is ultimately an influence on everyone around the globe and not a small one. Which brings us to the americans who actually vote. They really don't give a **** about foreign policy, they even hardly care about their own but none what so ever when it comes to the foreign policy. The surveillance scandal shows that very well. 

 

[rocklikeafool]

The brute force and the heat alone should obliterate any target, no?

No, it clearly would not. 

 

 

Here's the problem with trump (okay there are many but this is the main one) 

WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU, TS?! 

 

You go from your OP to letting the discussion go this way? What?!

[Novak]

 

No, it clearly would not. 

 

 

WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU, TS?! 

 

You go from your OP to letting the discussion go this way? What?!

 

 

No need to cry about it

[Xerxes52]

Nukes aren't great in space combat, for the above mentioned reasons.

 

A solid chunk of tungsten traveling at high speed would be more effective in space. See Rick Robinson's First Law of Space Combat: An object impacting 3 km/sec delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT. Get something heavy enough going fast enough, and the thermal energy released would obliterate a ship (Kinetic Barriers don't stop heat).

 

 

Now what would be really great would be a bomb-pumped X-ray laser (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's novel Footfall is a good example). In this case a nuclear warhead would "pump" a certain number of laser rods with X-rays, unleashing devastating X-ray beams for a few microseconds before the laser rods are annihilated by the nuclear blast. These would effectively be one-shot weapons, preferably mounted on missiles or satellites.

 

Given that Kinetic Barriers do nothing to lasers, a single missile (or a dozen, or a hundred, however many get through a ship's GUARDIAN) with a dozen or so bomb-pumped laser rods on the nose could atomize any ship it hit.

[Filament]

Here's the problem with trump (okay there are many but this is the main one) if americans do decide to elect that guy one would assume it's strictly their business. The thing is, it's really not. The US is such a powerful country that this is ultimately an influence on everyone around the globe and not a small one. Which brings us to the americans who actually vote. They really don't give a **** about foreign policy, they even hardly care about their own but none what so ever when it comes to the foreign policy. The surveillance scandal shows that very well. 
 

There's no way Americans will vote for him in the general election. He's massively unpopular outside of his rabid bigot base.

[CrazyCatDude]

In today's market, a 20 kilo iron slug will cost you $80 dollars.  A nuclear warhead will cost you $2,000,000.  The iron slug, traveling at 1.3% of light speed will deliver the same yield at a 10 kiloton warhead.  *WITHOUT* radioactive fallout.

 

Antimatter, as a weapon, straight up sucks.  The vast majority of the energy releases is releases as hard gamma radiation, which is easy to shield again.  Also, Antimatter is insanely hard to make, and more dangerous to you than the enemy.

 

Mass Accelerator weapons, even assuming you coat the slug so it can shrug off the heat of re-entry, will cost you at most $200 a shot.

 

Why not nukes?  Because they're too freaking expensive.

[WarGriffin]

Well, to counter the romance heavy stuff let's talk about something else. Like Nukes! So here's what I wondered, if they have such a big problem with endless advanced enemy's why not just nuke them? I mean the Tsar, the largest hydrogen bomb ever build had a fireball with a diameter of 30 km, in which the estimated temperature was well over 10 million kelvin. And that wasn't even the biggest one they decided an explosive yield of 100 mt was too much so they instead dialed it down to 50. 

 

The brute force and the heat alone should obliterate any target, no?

 

Cause if they are suffiecnetly advanced to stop the nuke... They'll know to take the kid gloves off and Doomsday ray our asses

[Master Warder Z_]

 if they have such a big problem with endless advanced enemy's why not just nuke them?

 

For once I can agree wholeheartedly with sentiment, folks wonder why I want to employ colony drops on heavily defended/populated worlds.

 

Unleashing a 18 kilometer long object upon a target when its traveling at roughly 15 kilometers a hour is a good option if conventional firepower won't win the day. Even better if said object is loaded with highly explosive and combustible fuel to power its boosters or packed with conventional explosives. Zeon used it to great effect on Earth, unleashing the largest explosion created in human history at a whopping five hundred megatons, it struck Sydney like a bolt from God. It evaporated kilometers of the impact site simply from existence and boiled the sea for dozens of kilometers outward, it was a global shifting event that buried that city beneath the sea.

 

I mean if you don't care about capturing or occupying a location, and its too much hassle? Asteroids, colonies, whatever...drop it from orbit, no need to employ nuclear warheads or weapons of mass destruction, gravity and mass can be a weapon all their own.

 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Pre-reaper war, they were banned for use on garden worlds, and were probably in relatively limited supply.  You get to disarm an alliance nuke in ME1 though.

 

In space the nukes are like giant flashbulbs anyway so they aren't so great.  That is unless you can deliver them directly to the target.  Maybe the missiles  aren't economic, depending on how many you need to get past GARDIAN like systems to ensure a hit.  Engineering a projectile to be launched via mass accelerator might be superior; but again, maybe the economics don't work out relative to simply firing a few solid metal slugs.  Or they really can't g harden a warhead for mass accelerator.

 

Probably the devs and writers just didn't want them to be in this universe.

 

Incorrect. When the Reapers attempted to invade Illium, according to Mass Effect lore the Asari used nukes against the Reapers and forced them to withdraw. They still produce a ton of heat and radiation. 

 

And Earth still had a butt load of them. The missile silos were the first things the reaper hit when they attacked earth. Why? Because they were probably the most effective weapon against them. 

 

The reason they weren't available to us as players was so that we would have no option available other than the Crucible. Having nukes in addition to allowing Xen to run her cut experiment on the Citadel would have destroyed our multi-colored ending.

[AlanC9]

Weren't the ilium nukes used against the transports, though?

[Laughing_Man]

Weren't the ilium nukes used against the transports, though?

 

Point is, there are weapons and tactics that could have been used at least to a moderate success against Reapers.

 

Unfortunately, the Reapers were protected by something stronger than any barrier - Plot Armor.

 

We were railroaded into using the giant space microphone, resistance is futile.

[Filament]

In today's market, a 20 kilo iron slug will cost you $80 dollars.  A nuclear warhead will cost you $2,000,000.  The iron slug, traveling at 1.3% of light speed will deliver the same yield at a 10 kiloton warhead.  *WITHOUT* radioactive fallout.

How much of that energy is actually transferred into destructive potential though? I wonder that about current experimental railgun designs as well. It seems like a slug simply having as much kinetic energy as a conventional explosive wouldn't necessarily do as much damage if it just pierces straight through the ship and dissipates the rest of the energy into the ocean. Or the crust, as it were.

[Laughing_Man]

How much of that energy is actually transferred into destructive potential though? I wonder that about current experimental railgun designs as well. It seems like a slug simply having as much kinetic energy as a conventional explosive wouldn't necessarily do as much damage if it just pierces straight through the ship and dissipates the rest of the energy into the ocean. Or the crust, as it were.

 

Indeed, it's not going to have the same devastating effect a nuke has at about a hundred meters above ground,

the sphere of destruction from an nuclear warhead would be more like a cone of destruction in the case of a kinetic weapon,

and this cone will be aimed directly into the ground and mostly wasted on deep penetration.

 

A meteor is different and potentially more destructive because it is not good at penetration relatively speaking, so the energy will spread in a wide sphere around the point of impact.

 

In short the difference is similar to the difference between an armor piercing round and a hollow-point round, one is more effective for penetration,

the other is more effective at causing trauma.

[Seboist]

For once I can agree wholeheartedly with sentiment, folks wonder why I want to employ colony drops on heavily defended/populated worlds.

 

Unleashing a 18 kilometer long object upon a target when its traveling at roughly 15 kilometers a hour is a good option if conventional firepower won't win the day. Even better if said object is loaded with highly explosive and combustible fuel to power its boosters or packed with conventional explosives. Zeon used it to great effect on Earth, unleashing the largest explosion created in human history at a whopping five hundred megatons, it struck Sydney like a bolt from God. It evaporated kilometers of the impact site simply from existence and boiled the sea for dozens of kilometers outward, it was a global shifting event that buried that city beneath the sea.

 

I mean if you don't care about capturing or occupying a location, and its too much hassle? Asteroids, colonies, whatever...drop it from orbit, no need to employ nuclear warheads or weapons of mass destruction, gravity and mass can be a weapon all their own.

 

Reminds me of the old SNES classic "Assault Suits Valken/Cybernator", where i would sometimes deliberately fail to prevent the orbiting asteroid base from crashing into the earth, so i could see it crash into the background in the following mission and cause a giant explosion. Granted, this would ultimately lead to the bad ending, but since the bad ending's theme was so badass, it wasn't much of a negative consequence.

 

 

Between the game having actual gameplay related C&C like that(unlike ME), the music and destroying the European Union(the antagonist faction) in a SNES game, ASV/Cyberator is pretty damn win.