Full Version: When Nukes Fall
| QUOTE (Siege) |
| Joel - I don't think you can count Winternight as a strictly magical threat since they are trying to bring about a nuclear winter with...well...nukes. -Siege |
Winternight would find it easier to get into aerospace, and go for an asteroid. It is much easier to bring about "nuclear winter" with an asteroid than it is with nukes. In fact, it may actually be impossible to generate nuclear winter with nukes.
The theory of "nuclear winter" assumes that in a nuclear war, enough dust and dirt are thrown up into the atmosphere to initiate an ice age. The problem is that a new look at the math it was based on seems to indicate that the theorists were WAY off on their numbers (perhaps intentionally...made better copy for the anti-nuke crowd). It probably would take more nukes than we have now (which is a lot more than exist in the Shadowrun universe).
A large asteroid on the other hand...that one would be a killer. And it would be a lot more likely to slip in. It would make an interesting high-level adventure, racing to stop a recently discovered asteroid heading for Earth.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Keep in mind that I think that nukes still work, if not as predictably as they once did, but: If you were a mega, and you had nukes, and they stopped working, and you got rid of them, would you let that be known? ~J |
Of course, while nukes may or may not work, dirty bombs still would, so dismantle the bombs and keep the nuclear material handy.
I didn't say it was the best possible avenue of attack Lok - simply that's how they plan on unleashing their winter. 
-Siege
-Siege
| QUOTE (Cable) | ||
I didn't consider this. It would still provide the ruined setting with out all the complications from fallout... |
True. Just look at the future scenes in "12 Monkeys".
I believe Wintermute tried to send a nuke to Haliys Comet in WotC. Endings suggest the distruction of a space platform when the thing goes off.
| QUOTE (Lindt) |
| I believe Wintermute tried to send a nuke to Haliys Comet in WotC. Endings suggest the distruction of a space platform when the thing goes off. |
Winternight doesn't care for nuklear winter per sea. What they want is ragnarok, which to them is killing off everybody on the planet. Nuklear winter is one of the ways they've come up with to do this.
One of the results of the run in Wake of the Comet is that the comet hits earth. If the GM wished to avoid this fate, he can say that the bomb went off before the probe got to the comet, or that the runners need to get to space to stop it from leaving the space platform.
When I ran it, my runners never figured out anything about the bomb, and the world ended.
So, I decided to be a horible GM and re-wind the run to give them another chance, in which they figured it out and the comet didn't hit the earth.
Thundarr the Barbarian
R
R
Dirty bombs are more bark than bite, you'd be better off using bio-weapons or chemical weapons.
As far as maintainence of nukes, they require a lot of maintainence as I said before. I don't want to get into details but you should really take some time and read up on it if you are interested. You would be suprised.
For example, most of the "briefcase" nukes that are unaccounted for would by now have their yields signifigantly reduced if they managed to go critical at all because of the constant maintainence required to keep them usable. Larger nukes are not an exception to this.
As far as maintainence of nukes, they require a lot of maintainence as I said before. I don't want to get into details but you should really take some time and read up on it if you are interested. You would be suprised.
For example, most of the "briefcase" nukes that are unaccounted for would by now have their yields signifigantly reduced if they managed to go critical at all because of the constant maintainence required to keep them usable. Larger nukes are not an exception to this.
Not to mention security costs. However, the advantage of using nukes over biological destruction is that nuclear weapons would destroy the infrastructure as well as the life forms.
True, but, that is also the advantage of biological weapons =) They leave the infrastructure intact. (more or less)
I agree, but that just doesn't jive with my view of post apocalyptic. While it is dark and has it's own potential, I like the imagery of wiping the surface smooth.
I've always been partial to the ghost-towns and ghost-cities that used to be bustling with life, that now have fallen into degradation and slow decay and where no one dares live.
Point 1: Maintenence of Nukes
Maintaining a nuclear weapon involves a lot more than just replacing the deuterium. Maintenence of the warhead itself involves: ensuring the comuters and electronics remain in good working order (no mean feat when they're by necessity exposed to radiation on a constant basis), ensuring that the detonators and explosives neccessary to detonate them (or the A-bomb portion of them) don't deteriorate, ensuring that the uranium remains viable as a fission source, etc.
For the ICBM/delivery device, you also have to keep the tanks filled and cooled, because rocket fuel is massively unstable; you have to keep the attitude jets/verniers/thrust nozzle in working order, which isn't easy - they break quite easily; you have to ensure the missile guidance systems are still in working order.
Basically, imagine one of the Apollo rockets. Now imagine it on a vastly smaller scale. Not AS expensive, but still very. I assure you, from the testimony of nuclear physicists I've spoken to, keeping ICBMs and nuke warheads operational is very expensive.
Point 2: All apologies to AH, I see no evidence that nuclear fission works differently than it used to. Certainly, there have been a lot of nuclear meltdowns - more than there have been so far. But consider this - percentage wise, the meltdown to amount of nuclear fission in use in the 2060s is quite reasonable. All those corporations, building their own reactors? All those third-world countries and banana republics, having their own reactors due to the proliferation of 'free information'? All their military vessels having fission reactors?
I see the erroring of nuclear strikes and the meltdowns as evidence not of the laws of physics having changed, but rather evidence of clandestine power plays by corporations, governments, and shadowy organizations. It's actually really easy to break a nuclear warhead or cause a meltdown - all it takes in the first case is smashing some electronics. In the second, it takes smashing the RIGHT electronics. People can cite the Cermak blast as another, more modern irregularity, but don't make the mistake that it's irregularity was something internal to the warhead or how it operated - it was an external force operating on that warhead.
Maintaining a nuclear weapon involves a lot more than just replacing the deuterium. Maintenence of the warhead itself involves: ensuring the comuters and electronics remain in good working order (no mean feat when they're by necessity exposed to radiation on a constant basis), ensuring that the detonators and explosives neccessary to detonate them (or the A-bomb portion of them) don't deteriorate, ensuring that the uranium remains viable as a fission source, etc.
For the ICBM/delivery device, you also have to keep the tanks filled and cooled, because rocket fuel is massively unstable; you have to keep the attitude jets/verniers/thrust nozzle in working order, which isn't easy - they break quite easily; you have to ensure the missile guidance systems are still in working order.
Basically, imagine one of the Apollo rockets. Now imagine it on a vastly smaller scale. Not AS expensive, but still very. I assure you, from the testimony of nuclear physicists I've spoken to, keeping ICBMs and nuke warheads operational is very expensive.
Point 2: All apologies to AH, I see no evidence that nuclear fission works differently than it used to. Certainly, there have been a lot of nuclear meltdowns - more than there have been so far. But consider this - percentage wise, the meltdown to amount of nuclear fission in use in the 2060s is quite reasonable. All those corporations, building their own reactors? All those third-world countries and banana republics, having their own reactors due to the proliferation of 'free information'? All their military vessels having fission reactors?
I see the erroring of nuclear strikes and the meltdowns as evidence not of the laws of physics having changed, but rather evidence of clandestine power plays by corporations, governments, and shadowy organizations. It's actually really easy to break a nuclear warhead or cause a meltdown - all it takes in the first case is smashing some electronics. In the second, it takes smashing the RIGHT electronics. People can cite the Cermak blast as another, more modern irregularity, but don't make the mistake that it's irregularity was something internal to the warhead or how it operated - it was an external force operating on that warhead.
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
| Dirty bombs are more bark than bite, you'd be better off using bio-weapons or chemical weapons. |
True, but if you have the material handy already, they aren't very difficult. As a terrorist weapon, it works great because while it might not kill a lot of people, it does disrupt them greatly while cleanup proceeds. Do it in the right places, and you can get a lot of effect for a little bite.
| QUOTE ("Adarael) |
| Point 2: All apologies to AH, I see no evidence that nuclear fission works differently than it used to. Certainly, there have been a lot of nuclear meltdowns - more than there have been so far. But consider this - percentage wise, the meltdown to amount of nuclear fission in use in the 2060s is quite reasonable. All those corporations, building their own reactors? All those third-world countries and banana republics, having their own reactors due to the proliferation of 'free information'? All their military vessels having fission reactors? I see the erroring of nuclear strikes and the meltdowns as evidence not of the laws of physics having changed, but rather evidence of clandestine power plays by corporations, governments, and shadowy organizations. It's actually really easy to break a nuclear warhead or cause a meltdown - all it takes in the first case is smashing some electronics. In the second, it takes smashing the RIGHT electronics. People can cite the Cermak blast as another, more modern irregularity, but don't make the mistake that it's irregularity was something internal to the warhead or how it operated - it was an external force operating on that warhead |
+1
has anyone ever watched dark angel?
that is shadowrun in a post-apocalpse setting
with cat/humans
oh yeah
SURGE
o well
-Icarus
that is shadowrun in a post-apocalpse setting
with cat/humans
oh yeah
SURGE
o well
-Icarus
| QUOTE |
| I've always been partial to the ghost-towns and ghost-cities that used to be bustling with life, that now have fallen into degradation and slow decay and where no one dares live. |
I've always considered this to be the case in many of the midwestern US cities abandoned by pink-skins after the Ghost-dance. The indian population is too low to keep the cities functioning and with the back to the land mentality many would be abandoned.
I'd be interested in hearing any opinions on this idea and which cities might thus be empty.
What about a volcanic winter? After the great Ghost Dance, certain volcanoes were erupted. In your possible future, what would happen if those eruptions sparked off a chain of related events. Cataclysmic quakes in Tokyo, California...pretty much anywhere there is a fault.
Hell, you could even detonate/erupt Yellostone park. You could have a future where arcologies are the only way to live outside of all the debris in the air. Or whatever....just a thought.
Hell, you could even detonate/erupt Yellostone park. You could have a future where arcologies are the only way to live outside of all the debris in the air. Or whatever....just a thought.
Come on, no more Day After Tomorrow.
| QUOTE (Ezra) |
| What about a volcanic winter? After the great Ghost Dance, certain volcanoes were erupted. In your possible future, what would happen if those eruptions sparked off a chain of related events. Cataclysmic quakes in Tokyo, California...pretty much anywhere there is a fault. Hell, you could even detonate/erupt Yellostone park. You could have a future where arcologies are the only way to live outside of all the debris in the air. Or whatever....just a thought. |
You mean if they actually managed to lower the global air temperature like one volcano (Krakatoa) did?
The Hell you say.
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) |
| Not to mention security costs. However, the advantage of using nukes over biological destruction is that nuclear weapons would destroy the infrastructure as well as the life forms. |
Neutron bombs? Although I'm not sure what their kill radius is compared to regular nuclear devices- no blast wave or fires AFAIK.
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
True, but, that is also the advantage of biological weapons.  They leave the infrastructure intact. (More or less) |
The problem with these, and chemical weapons, though is that you first have to make and then weaponise it. Then you have to figure out how to deliver the stuff, which is actually probably the hard part. I know that the Russians produced ICBM warheads that were capable of carrying chemical/biological weapons- I'll try and dig out the link.
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| For the ICBM/delivery device, you also have to keep the tanks filled and cooled, because rocket fuel is massively unstable; |
Solid propellants? AFAIK pretty much every US ICBM uses them rather than the much more unstable/costly liquid option. Plus it massively cuts down on launch times. Or did you mean that even these take a lot of maintenance as well?
But if you want something that'll put a dent in the world, why not try supervolcanoes? Of course, you'd just have to have your bunch of whacko cultists figure out how to trigger the things. Failing that, if you merely want something to trash most of the CAS/UCAS and Carrib League and large sections of Europe, Africa and South America, then figuring out how to activate the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the Canary Islands would be a real goer.
Personally I've always been fond of the genetically tailored bioweapon that got loose. Provides you with nifty backdrops with places like New York being completely cleared out whilst still allowing you to have pockets of survivors in the remoter areas. Plus it also means that you get to keep all the animal life around. Hell, maybe some super sekret cult decided they're the new lords of creation/inheritors of the world and this is their version of an eviction notice.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| You mean if they actually managed to lower the global air temperature like one volcano (Krakatoa) did? The Hell you say. |
I don't understand what you're saying..
Are you saying that a volcanic winter is impossible after such a chain of eruptions, or are you saying that playing shadowrun under those conditions is impossible?
Not being obtuse, I just don't understand what you're saying.
Sorry. I meant that volcanic winter is possible, because it's happened. Albeit, not to a world-shattering magnitude (well, depending on how you define world-shattering), or even that of which the eruption of all of the volcanoes due to the GGD would have; the 2061 PacRim eruptions further enhancing, them, of course.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| Sorry. I meant that volcanic winter is possible, because it's happened. Albeit, not to a world-shattering magnitude (well, depending on how you define world-shattering), or even that of which the eruption of all of the volcanoes due to the GGD would have; the 2061 PacRim eruptions further enhancing, them, of course. |
Ah. Check. Agreed. It just seems to me to be a really nice way to game in the post-apocalyptic world, without using nukes.
You know, another way would be simply to use the VITAS outbreaks...what happens if they were not cured/contained?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.