[OOC] Age of Rebirth (Post WW3)

[EveryMemeAKing]

The UTA is just a military dictatorship, not a FASCIST military dictatorship.

<Snipped quote by Durandal>

Oh yeah? Well guess what WE'RE going to do with our Navy?

SHIP IT TO KEPLER 22B AND RULE IT'S PLANET-WIDE OCEAN.

SO SCREW YOU.

@Keyguyperson

Space 'Murica

[Keyguyperson]

<Snipped quote by Keyguyperson>

Space 'Murica

@MetalLover

Well, why do you think we're going there? Surely there's plenty of untapped oil there!

[EveryMemeAKing]

<Snipped quote by MetalLover>

Well, why do you think we're going there? Surely there's plenty of untapped oil there!

@Keyguyperson

Just go recolonise Canada in the Name of Freedom, it has oil out the anus, and no one claimed it.

[Willy Vereb]

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

No law against it, but if you use them, you shall be punished by the international community.

@MetalLover

That sounds almost like there's a law against it.
Nukes, like everything, is just a weapon. A powerful weapon but if not used to massacre cities then that's all it there's about it.
BTW, are depleted uranium rounds banned? Currently there's a potential for this because their use in hypervelocity projectiles effectively makes them like a chemical weapon.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I'd imagine you wouldn't want to use your nukes for anything. They ruin the country they're launched into making conquest impossible, and you open yourself up to being nuked by that nation or its allies. The only reason to ever use them would be because someone else did, or you want to destroy the entire planet in a massive nuclear war.

@FacePunch

You overestimate the power of nukes.
We can drop thousands of nuclear weapons on Earth and it barely changes anything.
Actually, in the name of nuclear tests we already did. Btween 1995 to 2053 the nations through the world performed 2053 nuclear tests.
That is, dropping 2053 nukes on Earth, lead by the USA to a considerable degree.
Sure, megaton yield tests were just a tiny percentage of those but so are the ratio of megaton warheads in comparison to the rest.

Radiation poisoning is an issue but people live in Hiroshima even now and did even some years after the bombing.
And since I talk about clean nukes (no radioactive material is left on the site to contaminate the area) this issue is practically null, too.
Nukes are also nothing really close to apocalyptic. Their capability to destroy an entire city (in case of higher yield strategic warheads) is terrible but you would need billions or even more nuclear warheads to ever cover the surface of Earth with them.
Another note is that since countermeasures improved drastically the chance of successfully landing a nuclear warhead is diminishing unless somebody goes out of his way to launch insane amount of them at once.
If anything since in WW3 nukes were used it'd clear away some if not all of the overexaggerated fear of them.
Make no mistake. Nukes are powerful. A strategic nuke used in population centers can exhaust all war crime offenses you can think of in almost any conventional wars and do it at once.
But annihilating a nation? At best in figurative sense by eliminating their governing body and key industries.
If the USA would ever turn into a crazy omnicidical nation their current stockpile is barely enough to literally annihilate a smallish nation like my country.

So yeah, use of strategic nuclear warheads on cities is practically equal to a war crime.
Using tactical warheads in battle? With the radiation poisoning removed it could be a matter of escalation.
If a nation is pushed enough they could try that against an enemy army.
It'd be somewhat comparable to using chemical weapons in WW2 though. You give the authorization for the enemy to use their own tactical warhead stockpiles to use against your army (or even your city centers if they don't realize they would be overstepping their boundaries).

[Odysseus]

Yeah but the entire concept of "mutually assured destruction" is what drove the Cold War. The idea that if you hit us, you better be sure we stay down.

[Willy Vereb]

Yeah but the entire concept of "mutually assured destruction" is what drove the Cold War. The idea that if you hit us, you better be sure we stay down.

@Odysseus

And the MAD concept got cleanly broken in WW3 here because all sorts of nations used nukes against each other.
This isn't the Cold War, neither our post Cold War modern world.
This is a post-WW3 setting and while not everybody and their long-dead mother threw nukes at each other, as described in the background stories of other nations, these happened "frequently enough" still.
Nuclear taboo is both the past and in another sense reaches new heights.

[FacePunch]

@Willy Vereb



According to this webside here:http://web.net/~cnanw/a3.htm and the image posted above, there are more than enough nuclear weapons on the earth to destroy it. Russia alone, if it was in the mood, could wipe out multiple continents with its nuclear stockpile.

[Willy Vereb]

@Willy Vereb



According to this webside here:http://web.net/~cnanw/a3.htm and the image posted above, there are more than enough nuclear weapons on the earth to destroy it. Russia alone, if it was in the mood, could wipe out multiple continents with its nuclear stockpile.

@FacePunch

Oh yeah.
And how many Tzar Bombas exist in the world? None.
Megaton yield stockpiles are also relatively small.
Besides, that "calculation" is deeply flawed because it uses the near total fatalities assumption of 5 PSI blastwave...which is completely useless for actually destroying anything in note.
That's the maximum range where a nuclear blastwave can potentially still ruin houses. Using it as an absolute measure is rather incorrect.
The geography of the Earth alone would work like a natural shelter against far-reaching blasts like that.
Or hell, just a house-sized hill.
The row of houses in your street would effectively absorb this pressure and leave only a fraction of this to the next row of houses. Especially if we count for the inverse square law.
This just further proves how exaggerated the fear of nukes had become.
We cannot literally destroy ourselves with them.
Maybe we can mess up the planet to be damn annoying to live in and destroy the population centers but anything further is just mere fantasy.
For the record we can barely use our nuclear stockpiles to defend ourselves against an average asteroid impact or comet that can land on Earth, even if we ignore the issue with the range of our missiles.
KT Impact which supposedly killed the dinosaurs? We'd be still fucked.

[Monkeypants]

Screw that nuke crap. I'll put engines on the moon and bump it towards earth!!!

[Nerevarine]

Screw that nuke crap. I'll put engines on the moon and bump it towards earth!!!

@Monkeypants

[Willy Vereb]

Screw that nuke crap. I'll put engines on the moon and bump it towards earth!!!

@Monkeypants

I just wish to say that such idea would be impossible even if we use our entire stockpile of nukes in a giant Orion Drive network to push the Moon.

[Monkeypants]

I really need to post more... Feeling a tad neglected in the IC

Edit, Willy. If you wish hard enough (and watch plenty of anime) anything is possible!!

[FacePunch]

<Snipped quote by FacePunch>Oh yeah.
And how many Tzar Bombas exist in the world? None.
Megaton yield stockpiles are also relatively small.
Besides, that "calculation" is deeply flawed because it uses the near total fatalities assumption of 5 PSI blastwave...which is completely useless for actually destroying anything in note.
That's the maximum range where a nuclear blastwave can potentially still ruin houses. Using it as an absolute measure is rather incorrect.
The geography of the Earth alone would work like a natural shelter against far-reaching blasts like that.
Or hell, just a house-sized hill.
The row of houses in your street would effectively absorb this pressure and leave only a fraction of this to the next row of houses. Especially if we count for the inverse square law.
This just further proves how exaggerated the fear of nukes had become.
We cannot literally destroy ourselves with them.
Maybe we can mess up the planet to be damn annoying to live in and destroy the population centers but anything further is just mere fantasy.
For the record we can barely use our nuclear stockpiles to defend ourselves against an average asteroid impact or comet that can land on Earth, even if we ignore the issue with the range of our missiles.
KT Impact which supposedly killed the dinosaurs? We'd be still fucked.

@Willy Vereb

I guess. I'm no expert on this kinda stuff, so I can't really argue. I'd bet that we could still kill almost every human being on the planet if a full on nuclear war was started with the intention of killing everyone.

[Willy Vereb]

I really need to post more... Feeling a tad neglected in the IC

Edit, Willy. If you wish hard enough (and watch plenty of anime) anything is possible!!

@Monkeypants

I am pretty sure the GM would never allow this even if you were wishing hard enough for it, though.


Full scale nuclear war on the other hand can be a "good" way to end the NRP.

[EveryMemeAKing]

<Snipped quote by Monkeypants>I am pretty sure the GM would never allow this even if you were wishing hard enough for it, though.


Full scale nuclear war on the other hand can be a "good" way to end the NRP.

@Willy Vereb

Like I said, I good just make a sequel to this rp if it ends that way in a fallout like setting. (In Which the Greeks could Colonise the Glorious City of Constantinople and Rape and Pillage all turks)

[Willy Vereb]

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I guess. I'm no expert on this kinda stuff, so I can't really argue. I'd bet that we could still kill almost every human being on the planet if a full on nuclear war was started with the intention of killing everyone.

@FacePunch

Well, if suddenly without warning all nukes were launched and they successfully hit their target then the very least the major population centers would face something like 80-99% fatalities. Depending on how it's accomplished (how the nukes are concentrated).
Been a while since I last checked how large portion of the world is living in the largest cities but it'd be likely a considerable percentage of all humans on Earth.
The radiation and some environmental changes would also weigh on the survivors, along with the destruction of their government structure and key installations. The ensuring chaos and deaths would potentially match the numbers killed by the nukes.
There's a considerable chance such all out nuking would result in the destruction of modern civilization and that we must start over.
Though not guaranteed. The world is less centralized than you'd think.
Overall it'd be the worst event in human history.
Extinction, though? Unlikely.
Not even Einstein's famous "sticks and stones" quote.
I'm not encouraging all out nuclear war. It'd be terrible without a doubt.
I just say we seriously overestimate ourselves if we think detonating our nuclear stockpile could actually destroy Earth.
The planet is huge and it weathered worse.

[Willy Vereb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_response
Of course we roughly already use this but details like the "no-cities" policy can be added as a worldwide guideline.
And as I said, using nukes to destroy cities is a war crime even if it's a desperate all-out war.
We can add further details if needed like if a nation only employs sub-kiloton tactical warheads on military targets that wouldn't warrant the use of ICBMs and MIRVs, for example.
Though in general we have yet to use our military assets at all in this RP.
Of course cautions are never too early to make.

[Monkeypants]

No better time to invade Hawaii.

Use China's high tech, over funded, bloated military.

Ultra technologies include,
The Fuji 20x optical zoom rifle scope. Takes excellent high definition photos and very cheap ink!

Panasonic holographic sights and helmet mounted HUD. Great for streaming netflix

And the prize,

Introducing the next generation battlefield display and drone control system..

The Sony, Warstation 4!!

[FacePunch]

You're kinda scaring me, [Grey Warden]. Every time I mention complete and total devastation of mankind, he gives me this creepy thumbs up. I think he might want to kill all of us.

I dunno. Just a hunch.

[Iluvatar]

Illuvatar, did we ever resolve the current political state of Cyprus? I believe we are both operating under the assumption that it is a part of our respective state.

@The Nexerus

I thought we had decided that Britain administers the current IRL British Overseas Territories on the island, while Greece rules the remainder of Cyprus, including the largely unrecognised TRC.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

Like I said, I good just make a sequel to this rp if it ends that way in a fallout like setting. (In Which the Greeks could Colonise the Glorious City of Constantinople and Rape and Pillage all turks)

@MetalLover

Oooh, I like the idea of pillaging Turks. Lots of pillaging. Yes.

Btw, Greece has not got a nuclear weapons program and has no atomic bombs, ICMBs or any other similar type of nuclear weapon. It has a couple of nuclear-power submarines, though.

I might consider hosting nuclear weapons of my allies if they ask, however.