Not sure if I should call this a WIP or even a proposal. The only thing "new" in it is that folks might have noticed this trend and gotten worried--hardly a stretch, imho. I was presuming that atomic bombs *there* are pretty much the same as *here* but that no one yet had gotten around to inventing thermonuclear weapons. So far as we know. Zahir 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but I thought this was a different "take" on the whole issue. On the other hand, I've no objections to combining the two. The previous article is a little bit out of date. Zahir 18:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not so much a different take as a different name, as the two articles are really describing the same historical data. I think the Nuclear Warfare in IB article can safely be inserted within this article. Perhaps rather than WIP or PROP, it should be treated as Source material. Elemtilas 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have combined the three articles into one, and have tried to gently change "nuclear" back to "atomic". In looking at all the uses of these weapons over the last 60 years or so, plus comments in the talk pages, I get the sense that we're not talking about tens of megatons of yield in these weapons. Ten or fifteen KILOTONNES I think might be the upper limit of such bombs.
- I think we could delete the Nuclear Warfare and RA Weapons articles, as all the materials are now here; but perhaps a redirect will do. Elemtilas 20:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Here follows the original discussions from the Nuclear Warfare article.
Maybe we should specify that "nuclear weapons" probably represent something slightly different on IB. 10 nuclear weapons from *here* used within 50 years is *a lot* of radioacticity for one world--Marc Pasquin 09:33, 26 Feb 2005 (PST)
- Actually, it is a misconception that this much radiation is too much for the world or such; nuclear weapons, even somewhat more powerful ones, does not have that apocalyptic power they are frequently shown to have in movies. In fact, there were way more atomic explotions in real world than Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl (and those are already three). There were many nuclear tests (more than 10 definitely), which actually as wellincluded exploding nuclear weapons; but they were done in uninhabitted places, such as Polynesia (by France, USA), Novaya Zemlya (by Russia) and elsewhere, hence the impact on human population was minimal; and the world does not becomes radioactive because of that; it is true that at the places of tests the nature suffers, but impact to the whole world is not large. Abdul-aziz 13:48, 4 December 2005 (PST)
- The first five were likely not much more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki *here*. In fact, and my memory may be wrong here, but I think I recall that those were less powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. And, yeah, I think the recent ones weren't the big 10-megaton+ bombs we have *here*. Nik 11:02, 26 Feb 2005 (PST)
- Agreed. I gave up trying to get people to use "atomic bomb" and "hydrogen bomb" when refering to the relatively weak weapons in IB. I also never liked the idea of them being used in the 1949 War -- I really don't think it very plausible for the FK or China to have gotten one. But anyway, I am resigned to that fact. I definitely agree with Marc -- the term "nuclear weapon" MUST refer to a relatively weak bomb, equal to or less than the power of the US bombs used in Japan. Elemtilas
I think that the reason we have the 10+ megaton bombs here is because of the escalation between the USSR and the USA. Without the cold war, I don't think that nukes would've been that big. I think that they may have come to serve a tactical purpose, small localized explosions....at least that's the feel I get. BoArthur
- Indeed, no arms race *there*. Snorist Russia was equally powerful as the USSR *here*, but it was less interested in dominating the world and pretty much turned at the inside. Although the relations with the west were not particularly friendly, there was no need for anybody to start an arms race. IJzeren Jan 01:16, 27 Feb 2005 (PST)
To prepare a nuclear material for four bombs, it would take approx 3-4 years using a technology we might expect during GW2 in IB relating it to technology available *here*. So is it realistic? How long the *there's* "Manhattan project" went on? User:Jan II.
- The details are not known. We know only that Germany (i.e., the HRE) had the scientists (both atomic physicists AND rocket scientists) and the programme aimed at harnessing the atom for weapons use. We know that, towards the end of the GWII, they finished their bomb, but not the rocket capable of carrying it, so it was transported by land and set off by suicide bombers.
- It is this rocket technology that was later dusted off and used to launch their satellite into space a couple years ago.
- I guess that the bomb used in Asia was obtained from Germany at the conclusion of hostilities and was, in fact, a prototype destined for who knows where. Perhaps Paris? ;) Anyway, I have also wondered at how likely it really is for the FK to use such a thing... Elemtilas
Seems to me that in the last decade or so no less than four atomic weapons have been deployed--three in Asia and one in the Gulf of Mexico. I think the argument can easily be made that while at first these weapons were viewed with much the same horror as gas warfare was here following WW2, there the willingness to use them is on the increase.
It seems to me that international pressure to do something about this should be rising--as in some kind of covenant or accord to not only forbid the use of such weapons but maybe come down with total force against anyone who actually does. Zahir 10:12, 3 December 2005 (PST)
- Dalmatia is completely against the development and use of atomic weapons, continuing the policy established by the CSDS.
So more than twice as many atomic bombs have been dropped in the last ten years in IB as were ever used against human targets *here*? Methinks this is bound to have a socio-political impact. Paranoid stories about the results of atomic warfare are bound to start cropping up, and the call for a formalized Anti-Nuclear Accord will almost certainly be made. Doesn't this make sense? Zahir 11:15, 3 December 2005 (PST)
- As I suggested before, nuclear weapon are probably not as powerfull as *here*. One thing that occured to me the other day is that what went by that name *there* were nuclear *powered* missile. To explain, *here* there were fear that a large (relatively speaking) chian reaction could ignite the atmosphere.
- One other aplication which was was tought to be safer was a reactor. This reactor would have near limitless power (which is good) but the shielding was a problem (meaning it couldn't be used for manned vehicles).
- So lets say this happened *there*, the GW2 era weapons refered to as "nuclear weapon" were in fact long range missile (intercontinental V2 sort of things) powered by atomic motor.
- Now later on research would have reassured weapon makers but without the same impetus as *here*, modern atomic weapons (by our definition of the term) would be the equivalent of WW2 era weapons and due to the previous meaning of the term, the horror wouldn't have sunk in yet.
- --Marc Pasquin 13:30, 3 December 2005 (PST)
- I thought it had been established that Hessler's bomb was smuggled in pretty much by hand then detonated? Also, it seems to me that building a nuclear-powered rocket would not be in any sense easier than building a bomb. Quite the opposite.
- The impression I've always had was that the A-Bombs in IB were generally of much smaller yield than those *here* so that even the latest ones were hardly more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima. In fact, my impression was that atomic weapons were GW2's version of gas warfare--something tried, and then everybody pretty much agreed not to use again. Or so it was thought. Now it turns out that while most nations with the ability to construct such weapons simply have refrained or kept their numbers low, other nations have shown far less responsibility. This simply must be reflected socially and politically in IB. Granted, the full impact probably hasn't struck home yet. But it would already be felt, IMO. Zahir 14:09, 4 December 2005 (PST)
- Its not the actual mechanic of the missile thats easier, its simply that it does not require as much shielding --Marc Pasquin 16:48, 16 January 2006 (PST)
- Good debate. I believe that, seeing as how there have been so many detonation (and extreme loss of life) have been made, one would think the League of Nations would call a meeting to discuss a treaty on the subject, especially since the two that were detonated in the Gulf. I believe the treaty would ban any other countries from having them, letting only the current ones keep them, but reduce their number. Just a thought... Seth 3:40, 14 April 2006 (PST)
Slightly off-topic, but connected: what kind of reactors are used. Given that the technology was developed in Germany *there* first, and that *here* Modular Pebble Bed Reactors originated in Germany, I think it's quite likely that whatever civil nuclear power stations exists in IB are based on designs descended from the MPBR rather than Fast Neutron and Fast Breeder Reactors, which is directly descended from military technology used in subs.
Any thoughts? --Kgaughan 12:03, 3 December 2005 (PST)
- Thought: Anyone who would use nuclear reactor for power generation instead of a Tesla-type generator is a fool! :D
- ...or doesn't quite trust the Dalmatians... :-) --Kgaughan 10:22, 6 December 2005 (PST)
- Not to mention "fools" have never been on anyone's Endangered Species List. Zahir 10:26, 6 December 2005 (PST)
- Well, I'm no great lover of nuclear power myself (I'm Irish, after all!) but MPBR is one of the safer kinds of nuclear reactors. They're self-regulating and can't go critical, and they're quite inexpensive to build. The main difficulty in them is producing and reprocessing the graphite pebbles that are used as fuel, but in that regard they're definitely no worse than the reactors we have *here*. --Kgaughan 11:28, 6 December 2005 (PST)
- I would say that, given the attitude of non-proliferation that seemed to be largely the case, the MPBR would be the kind that existed. I guess, however, this means no 3 mile island and so-on. BoArthur 11:47, 6 December 2005 (PST)
I like your explanation. Four had always seemed like overkill. Nik 10:08, 14 January 2006 (PST)
- Thanks. Like the saying goes: when life gives you an exagerated amount of radioactive isotopes, you try and make plausible fision (or something like that) --Marc Pasquin 16:48, 16 January 2006 (PST)
I wonder, what countries has nuclear weapons in IB? I would assume many more than in the real world... Is it so that in fact most of capable countries (that is, all countries with the exception of the "third world" and the very small countries) are nuclear-armed? Abdul-aziz 03:47, 18 March 2006 (PST)
- You know, when I looked at this question, my immediate thought was "The major powers, naturally--the SR, FK, Russia, Japan, NAL, etc." But now, I wonder. Without the Cold War, the motivation to build such powerful devices is way reduced. But on the other hand, the fact the things have indeed been [u]used[/u] make it that much more likely that nations with strong militaries will indeed construct a (very small) cache of atomic bombs. Just in case. And in theory (sometimes in fact) they'd be replaced after a certain amount of time--say, twenty years?
- As for who would have them, I suspect the polities with really large militaries (SR, NAL, FK, Japan, Russia) would have small stockpiles and plans in place to produced a lot more. How detailed such plans are would depend on lots of factors. Then there are the nations perhaps wealthy enough and feeling sufficiently threatened to perhaps make an atomic bomb--Oltenia, Egypt, Alta California, Florida-Carribea (obviously). Zahir 07:20, 18 March 2006 (PST)
- Japan would probably have armed if Russia were armed. Chinese states - Beihanguo definitely would not be armed. They'd be in a situation similar to Japan *here* vis-a-vis Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I suspect the RTC would be the same way, thanks to Lodz. Nik 20:05, 18 March 2006 (PST)
- Something to consider, without any kind of non-proliferation treaties, its possible that there is no difference preceived between different type of nuclear research. In other words, having nuclear power plants would probably mean having some type of nuclear based weapons or at least the option to have them. --Marc Pasquin 03:24, 19 March 2006 (PST)
- My take? The RTC certainly does not have them, Łódź or no Łódź, for the very plain and simple reason that it was neutral after GW2 (a bit like Austria *here*). If the RTC has atomic bombs, then that must be a fairly recent thing and only in the deepest secret.
- Russia on the other hand is of course full of the things. It's quite possible that some of its former satellites have a few leftovers from that period as well.
- As for F-C: I don't think it could really be considered an atomic power. Even if it had a few, they were probably bought rather than home-made. There are lots of international arms dealers who buy and sell the stuff. The bomb used on Charlotte Amalie was probably either stolen from the NAL, or bought from one of Russia's republics. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:30, 19 March 2006 (PST)
- Makes sense. I always wondered how Jaime could've developed a nuclear weapons program in FC. Nik 18:23, 19 March 2006 (PST)
- Now, this makes me wonder about Tejas. If they did have some smuggled from FC, then obviously they weren't used, since no doubt San Diego would've been moved and renamed "Nôvo San Diego" by now. If Tejas had them, then AC probably would've looked into smuggling them or creating their own program (it's not like there isn't enough empty desert *there* to do tests). I'm pretty sure Montrei wouldn't have them, since as far as I know no nuclear power stations were built, and they were neutral during GW2. Doobieous 18:46, 19 March 2006 (PST)
- I forgot to chip in : NF as no nuclear capacities (weapons or power plants) since there was no perceived needs for either, Australasia as a few nuclears weapon and some nuclear power plants although the later are being phased out for cheaper mean of generating energy (such as wind and solar power).--Marc Pasquin 12:07, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
- The NAL is the defacto defense force for New Francie anyway (the place would be pretty hard to invade, should anyone wish to do so, without landing in the passing over the NAL first). The NAL almost certainly has the capacity to make atomic weapons, though I don't know if they have any or not. Elemtilas 13:53, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
- I was wondering... seeing the curent situation in Iran *here*, do you believe that some 2nd world (not modern, but rather close) country *there* would be doing something along those lines? Seth 3:34, 14 April 2006 (PST)
- As I understand it could be so, but this would receive much less attention in general; probably various smaller countries would have nuclear weapons already if they wish to have them as there wouldn't be that much initiative to stop them. Abdul-aziz 02:19, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
- The whole current debate *here* wouldn't realy apply *there* unless there was some sort of international non proliferation treaty which, considering most events on IB, probably don't exist. In other words, any countries could use nuclear energy as they see fit. If any large country disagreed, they would have to do so through diplomatic pressure or outright military intervention (unlike *here*, the later would happen openly). --Marc Pasquin 09:10, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
I wrote a proposal on RA weapons. Basically, I would suggest that nukes would be split into two based on their strenght and possible uses. Field nukes as explained in that article are not invented by me, it seems that India and Pakistan develops these projects in the real world too (as they would be more useful in actual war, warheads on missiles being more of a political side and usage of them by one side in case of war would lead to the similar answer; in addition, field nukes would be cheaper, they would primarily target enemy armed forces rather than civilians). However in the real world due to the stigma associated with the nuclear warfare, non-proliferation treaties and such employment of such field nukes is not considered by most countries. In IB this is not the case; and of course the governments in IB understood already that usage of large-scale nukes against cities does relatively little to the military cause in comparement to the damages for civilians. Field nukes are different - of course, they also have some longstanding effects however on people's health at the place where battles using field nukes took place (although those effects are smaller than of e.g. Hiroshima or Chernobyl and they largely depend on person's exposure at the time the field nuke exploded), and therefore there would be campaigns to stop using them (similarly as in the real world there are campaigns to stop using land mines for example), but in general many nations would have them in arsenal; as for the strategic nukes (that is, nukes similar to most of the real world warheads), that would be more costly to build and keep and as well it would be costly to aquire and keep good long range missiles, and thus fewer countries would have them - they would be more of a political weapon, to be used only if the country would be close to loosing a war and they would be a mean of making the possible enemies weary of attacking and such (of course, some countries might have been quicklier to use the strategic nuke than others). Abdul-aziz 14:06, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
And here is the original discussion from the RA Weapons talk page:
I réally don't think IB has the sorts of nuclear weapons we all know and love from *here*. There was no Cold War to spur on escalation. At best, I think the average atomic weapon from IB would be in your field weapons range. The largest weapons are capable of levelling good sized areas (like the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs from *here*), perhaps even a little more powerful than that. Elemtilas 13:57, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
- Yes, there is indeed no thermonuclear bombs or similar. By SRAWs I mean the kind of bombs that were used against the Chinese cities, Lodz, Florida Carribea. FRAWs might have had many usages in various wars, in places of battles rather than places of population, and against the armed forces fo the enemy; the damage to enviroiment still exists however, but far from the ammounts of e.g. Chernobyl disaster in real world, or the SRAW usage for that matter (I commented some more on the Nuclear Warfare in IB talk page). As for the range of SRAWs, a lot depends on what is the level of missile technology in IB, about which I don't know. Abdul-aziz 14:10, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
- Rocket technology just isn't there to support the idea of bombs being shot out of submarines or ships the way we've got strategic missiles *here*. Also, the weapons themselves really aren't all that powerful. 15 kilotons is probably a good upper limit. Elemtilas 20:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)