Nuclear Strategy Game

[Bartok5]

For those with an apocalyptic bent, try this global strategy game.  I played through the free on-line tutorial and quite enjoyed it.  Nobody wins, but it is pretty fun to see who gets away with the least damage.

www.everybody-dies.com

 

[Rocketryan]

I downloaded the demo like a week ago,played it for an hour or two then uninstalled it.
My summary:
Its hard.
I had it on easy and the computer still kicked my butt.
My fleets got nuked.
Airplanes got shot down.
I had like -5 points and the computer had like 70 points. It was because I was attacking military targets and the computer attacked civilian targets. Good time waster!


Another Nuke Strategy game that takes like 10 minutes
http://www.addictinggames.com/wargames1983.html
You play as America or Russia. It seems like that game from the movie War Games

 

[GnyHwy]

Found this interesting video for all the nuclear explosions since 1945, where the occured, the countries that made them, and it keeps score the whole time.  I don't want to ruin if for you, but the U.S. wins.

It's a bit slow and boring sometimes, but the are few times that things really pick up.  58, and 62-65 seemed quite busy.  Maybe our historians can explain why some times seem more active.

http://www.trueactivist.com/gab_gallery/a-time-lapse-map-of-every-nuclear-explosion-since-1945/

 

[Nemo888]

Perhaps no one should have nuclear weapons. It would make it much easier to push nonproliferation down new countries who try to join the nuke capable club. It's rather dubious to tell people that the fancy toys you have are much too dangerous for them to own. We would of course hide a few nukes, but not that many

 

[vonGarvin]

Perhaps no one should have nuclear weapons.

The fact that NATO and the Warsaw Pact had so many nuclear weapons actually kept the two alliances from coming to blows in Central Europe, so I wouldn't be so rash to say something like that.

 

[cupper]

The fact that NATO and the Warsaw Pact had so many nuclear weapons actually kept the two alliances from coming to blows in Central Europe, so I wouldn't be so rash to say something like that.

But you had two relatively rational opponents who understood the ramifications of their use.

But as we move from first to second world nations, the rational side of mutually assured destruction starts to go out the window. And with governments that are only one or two steps removed from complete instability (I'm looking at you Pakistan) things start looking less mutual and more mad.

 

[Old Sweat]

Found this interesting video for all the nuclear explosions since 1945, where the occured, the countries that made them, and it keeps score the whole time.  I don't want to ruin if for you, but the U.S. wins.

It's a bit slow and boring sometimes, but the are few times that things really pick up.  58, and 62-65 seemed quite busy.  Maybe our historians can explain why some times seem more active.

http://www.trueactivist.com/gab_gallery/a-time-lapse-map-of-every-nuclear-explosion-since-1945/

This compelling graphic shows the early tests (and the two operational shots) in the 40s and 50s. The ones in the 50s especially tested air, naval and land devices in open air. As I recall, there was a lot of outrage over fallout and stronium 90 contamination in milk. Through the 60s and 70s more and more of the US tests were underground ones of low yield devices which did not allow radioactive debris to vent into the atmosphere. I can't recall how many of the USSR, UK, French and Chinese tests were underground or open air; however I did see a film of a Chinese above ground test after which they moved troops into the area to check the effects of radiation poisioning. After that time, the era of lots of tests seems to have ended. There also was a test ban treaty, which more or less worked.

Edit to add: Circa 1953 Canadian troops were deployed along with Americans at what was thought to be a safe distance from tests of tactical devices on the US test range. These were mostly infantry from the QOR in Western Canada, but the COs and IOs of the Canadian based regular field regiments also participated. (A gunner role up to 1970 was tactical nuclear fire planning, the one qualification I have that I am really glad I never got to use.)

 

[Nemo888]

The fact that NATO and the Warsaw Pact had so many nuclear weapons actually kept the two alliances from coming to blows in Central Europe, so I wouldn't be so rash to say something like that.

Considering the bat shit crazy neighbors Russia has now with nukes they will be asking us before we ask them. I think we should say yes. We have no moral credibility to bar others from having them if we keep them.


Old Sweat metntioned Strontium 90 in milk. Let's see if 50+ years later thyroid cancer has spiked.
Yep. More than doubled and it's the fastest growing cancer. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-thyroid-cancer-ess.html

Fukushima cleanup costs are being put anywhere from 125 to 250 billion. At that price level maybe in a few years kids can move home and walk to school outside. Not play outside of course. That would be much too dangerous. Many already have thyroid nodules. Even a very limited nuclear exchange has a ridiculous civilian casualty rate.

If disarmament is a viable option the money could put back into conventional forces.

I'm not totally against upgrading to fusion nuclear weapons though.(or even pretending we have them) DARPA already designed fusion fuels with no radioactive breakdown products for use in reactors. Then we could bomb our enemies into a sheet of glass and dump our reliance on fossil fuels all on the same day. Or we could dig up some of the Ruskies old viral bioweapons. Bioweapons are  the ecologically conscious war fighters WMD.

 

[a_majoor]

Pure nuclear fusion weapons are not possible with our current technology or understanding of physics (some of the suggested means of triggering pure fusion reactions are more alarming than a fission trigger).

The argument about "moral credibility" makes no sense whatsoever. If you decide not to carry a firearm or have one in the house because you would have no "moral credibility" to ask the sociopathic neighbours not to have firearms then you might discover just how much weight moral credibility has.

 

[GnyHwy]

(A gunner role up to 1970 was tactical nuclear fire planning, the one qualification I have that I am really glad I never got to use.)

That would be a very interesting course.  The amount of considerations to conduct a fire plan like that are piling up in my head, and I probably don't know the half of them.  I wonder if an old TP is still kicking around somewhere?

I am also glad you did not have to use it.

 

[Robert0288]

old viral bioweapons. Bioweapons are  the ecologically conscious war fighters WMD.

Ecologically friendly... until it wipes out a species, or mutates.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Ecologically friendly... until it wipes out a species, or and mutates.

FTFY

;D