The SCUD was originally one of the first Soviet battlefield tactical rockets. It only carried one warhead - HE, biological or chemical. (I can't remember if SCUDS got tactical nuclear warheads - I'll check if I think of it.) The SCUD1 had a liquid fueled rocket - I think it was kerosene and liquid O2. It's biggest drawback was the amount of support it required - it was unlikely to get off a second shot. The SCUD2 was similar, but it had a wheeled transporter that made it a lot easier to 'shoot and scoot'.
The SCUD actually did have a guidance system, though it wasn't nearly as sophisticated as what is available now. The missle was aimed in the direction of the target - the targetting mechanism measured the rocket's velocity during flight and, after considering the pre-programmed trajectory, cut the engine when the rocket reached what should be approximately the right spot. Needless to say, this doesn't provide pinpoint accuracy. However, it was guided - I think that the unguided missles like the katyusha's are better examples of 'garbage cans with rocket motors'.
And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it.
Sorry about the soap box.
fud
General question on weaponry...
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!What he said!!!!!!!!!
"And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it. "
Right-O.......Maybe "cool" is a wrong choice of word on my part.................I've never been known for my sensitivity.
Martin
Right-O.......Maybe "cool" is a wrong choice of word on my part.................I've never been known for my sensitivity.
Martin
The SCUD was originally one of the first Soviet battlefield tactical rockets. It only carried one warhead - HE, biological, chemical or tactical nuclear. Although SCUDS were included in the armories of Warsaw Pact nations, only the Soviets had the nuclear warheads to fit them. The SCUD1 had a liquid fueled rocket - I think it was kerosene and liquid O2. And a transporter based on the JSIII chasis. It's biggest drawback was the amount of support it required. The SCUD2 was a slightly bigger rocket, and it had a wheeled transporter that made it a lot easier to 'shoot and scoot'. The same transporter was used for later Soviet ground rockets.
The SCUD actually did have a guidance system, though it wasn't very sophisticated. The missle was aimed in the direction of the target and an accelerometer on board cut the engine when it reached a pre-set velocity. Needless to say, this doesn't provide much accuracy. However, it was guided - I think that the unguided missles like the katyusha's are better examples of 'garbage cans with rocket motors'.
And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it.
Sorry about the soap box.
fud
The SCUD actually did have a guidance system, though it wasn't very sophisticated. The missle was aimed in the direction of the target and an accelerometer on board cut the engine when it reached a pre-set velocity. Needless to say, this doesn't provide much accuracy. However, it was guided - I think that the unguided missles like the katyusha's are better examples of 'garbage cans with rocket motors'.
And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it.
Sorry about the soap box.
fud
Sorry about the double post
HEy All,
Sorry about he double post - my computer locked, so I went to lunch and posted again when I got back - never thought that the first one got through. I did check a couple of my facts, though....
stay cool,
fud.
Sorry about he double post - my computer locked, so I went to lunch and posted again when I got back - never thought that the first one got through. I did check a couple of my facts, though....
stay cool,
fud.
Re: Re: Nukes aren't bad.............
London was sporadically firebombed, it did not suffer a firestorm like Dresden.Originally posted by G_X
Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby. London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC.
It is one thing to have buildings burning, it is another to have a fire that is so powerful that it generates gale force winds sucking the oxygen right out of the city. Many people were suffocated during the firestorm attacks that were not anywhere near the fire.
Personally I would prefer the flash death of a nuke to the coughing choking death of a firestorm.
thanks, John.
Pershings to my knowledge are tanks...>_>
Is there an ICBM/Nuke Capable MRBM that I don't know about called a Pershing as well? That's quite possible.
To clarify my own statements:
I don't believe Nukes can be used in a "Tactical" sense. To me, Tactical Sense is what WaW is, and I don't see me nuking my enemy in a game like WaW, Ever, even with a 100 hex (5km) map, I'd still basically destroy everything on the map. That's not Tactical, that's Strategic, what I view Nukes as being. That's just my viewpoint.
Also...529 bombs to fire-bomb Dresden. Compare this to the Single (1) Bomber it took to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.
This is what I mean by more murderous/destructive. If every one of those B-29's only had 10 bombs, that's 5290 bombs to do that kind of damage, Vs. 1 A-Bomb.
That's what I meant before, sorry I didn't make myself clear.
See, my views and your views of stability are apparently different. I don't view the Cold War as a time of stability in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the world has been stable at all for several hundred years. I don't think it will be stable any time soon. Yes, COMPARITIVELY (Emphasized so I'm sure you see it ) Vietnam and Korea were "Minor" conflicts. But tell that to the people who lost Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands to those two conflicts. Hard to explain to them why they died for such a "Minor" reason, don't you think? No war is trully "Minor" as the government tries to think of them, this is what I believe caused many of the mistakes in Vietnam, specifically the Air Force's inability to bomb civilian-populated areas at the begining of the war.
Also, if we had used Tactical nukes against Russian soldiers, what would have stopped them from using Strategic Nukes against us? Nothing, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Hawaii, and alot of others I'm sure the USSR had Nukes aimed at would be hurting, and our Strategic Nukes would have gone off as well, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Valdivostok...
I don't call that stable, I call that Pin-Drop, IE, the first Pin that drops blows the whole thing blows sky high. If you can call that stable, and I suppose you can...then I wish I could share your Optimism
And...
Sorry, I see your point, but the Russians, especially in the 70's an 80's were ahead of us in some areas, they were NOT that technologically backwards as most people seem to think, alot of our Euro-pals were much more backwards than the USSR was.
They did this despite the fact that they had very few of the rights America has as a democratic nation, as well as Stalin's purges, and the Gulags, which put alot of the brilliant minds of the USSR to work in slave-labor.
But to get to my point, you failed to tell me...What kept the world stable before nukes? Is the world that much more stable with them? DESPITE Pin-Drop?
As to your Shotgun/Dog theory...those are Defenses, and Deterrents.
But you're missing my point, those things guard your home, and keep people out. This is like someone sneaking into your almost-defenseless home, and you go over to his house and blow away his wife and kids while he robs you.
Does that make sense? I'd love to explain further, but the post is getting rather long, and is off topic for the thread really. I want to keep this up, it's hard to find someone who'll keep a light heart while arguing like this.
And as to your "Morally Hypocritical" theme, I've done that myself, yes. But I meant it in game usage, I'm sure if I had a Quad 50 pointed at me I'd not think it was cool
:p
I wanna keep this up, so feel free to e-mail me, talarus@yahoo.com This goes for anyone else as well, perhaps we could gather AIM names or something and all of us get together in a chat room to talk it out? It's just interesting stuff, especially if it stays in the (relatively) light hearted and good-spirited atmosphere it seems to be in now.
Is there an ICBM/Nuke Capable MRBM that I don't know about called a Pershing as well? That's quite possible.
To clarify my own statements:
I don't believe Nukes can be used in a "Tactical" sense. To me, Tactical Sense is what WaW is, and I don't see me nuking my enemy in a game like WaW, Ever, even with a 100 hex (5km) map, I'd still basically destroy everything on the map. That's not Tactical, that's Strategic, what I view Nukes as being. That's just my viewpoint.
Also...529 bombs to fire-bomb Dresden. Compare this to the Single (1) Bomber it took to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.
This is what I mean by more murderous/destructive. If every one of those B-29's only had 10 bombs, that's 5290 bombs to do that kind of damage, Vs. 1 A-Bomb.
That's what I meant before, sorry I didn't make myself clear.
See, my views and your views of stability are apparently different. I don't view the Cold War as a time of stability in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the world has been stable at all for several hundred years. I don't think it will be stable any time soon. Yes, COMPARITIVELY (Emphasized so I'm sure you see it
) Vietnam and Korea were "Minor" conflicts. But tell that to the people who lost Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands to those two conflicts. Hard to explain to them why they died for such a "Minor" reason, don't you think? No war is trully "Minor" as the government tries to think of them, this is what I believe caused many of the mistakes in Vietnam, specifically the Air Force's inability to bomb civilian-populated areas at the begining of the war.Also, if we had used Tactical nukes against Russian soldiers, what would have stopped them from using Strategic Nukes against us? Nothing, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Hawaii, and alot of others I'm sure the USSR had Nukes aimed at would be hurting, and our Strategic Nukes would have gone off as well, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Valdivostok...
I don't call that stable, I call that Pin-Drop, IE, the first Pin that drops blows the whole thing blows sky high. If you can call that stable, and I suppose you can...then I wish I could share your Optimism
And...
...The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?
Sorry, I see your point, but the Russians, especially in the 70's an 80's were ahead of us in some areas, they were NOT that technologically backwards as most people seem to think, alot of our Euro-pals were much more backwards than the USSR was.
They did this despite the fact that they had very few of the rights America has as a democratic nation, as well as Stalin's purges, and the Gulags, which put alot of the brilliant minds of the USSR to work in slave-labor.
But to get to my point, you failed to tell me...What kept the world stable before nukes? Is the world that much more stable with them? DESPITE Pin-Drop?
As to your Shotgun/Dog theory...those are Defenses, and Deterrents.
But you're missing my point, those things guard your home, and keep people out. This is like someone sneaking into your almost-defenseless home, and you go over to his house and blow away his wife and kids while he robs you.
Does that make sense? I'd love to explain further, but the post is getting rather long, and is off topic for the thread really. I want to keep this up, it's hard to find someone who'll keep a light heart while arguing like this.
And as to your "Morally Hypocritical" theme, I've done that myself, yes. But I meant it in game usage, I'm sure if I had a Quad 50 pointed at me I'd not think it was cool
:pI wanna keep this up, so feel free to e-mail me, talarus@yahoo.com This goes for anyone else as well, perhaps we could gather AIM names or something and all of us get together in a chat room to talk it out? It's just interesting stuff, especially if it stays in the (relatively) light hearted and good-spirited atmosphere it seems to be in now.
I think that London also had alot of civillians keeping the bombings from getting out of hand, running around pouring water on the sparks and such. I'm not sure, but it's what I've read.London was sporadically firebombed, it did not suffer a firestorm like Dresden.
It is one thing to have buildings burning, it is another to have a fire that is so powerful that it generates gale force winds sucking the oxygen right out of the city. Many people were suffocated during the firestorm attacks that were not anywhere near the fire.
Personally I would prefer the flash death of a nuke to the coughing choking death of a firestorm.
thanks, John.
If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
Well...............
"Pershings to my knowledge are tanks...>_>
"Is there an ICBM/Nuke Capable MRBM that I don't know about called a Pershing as well? That's quite possible. "
Go Here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/theater/pershing1.htm
To keep a long story short, American Pershings in Europe were kinda like Soviet Nukes in Cuba..............X-cept we kept ours there until arms limitation treaties started being agreed upon.........
To clarify my own statements:
"I don't believe Nukes can be used in a "Tactical" sense. To me, Tactical Sense is what WaW is, and I don't see me nuking my enemy in a game like WaW, Ever, even with a 100 hex (5km) map, I'd still basically destroy everything on the map. That's not Tactical, that's Strategic, what I view Nukes as being. That's just my viewpoint."
No argument from me on this point, I don't buy into the "tactical" use of nuclear weapons either, it can only lead to strategic destruction.
"Also...529 bombs to fire-bomb Dresden. Compare this to the Single (1) Bomber it took to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.
This is what I mean by more murderous/destructive. If every one of those B-29's only had 10 bombs, that's 5290 bombs to do that kind of damage, Vs. 1 A-Bomb."
I agree with you here as well, nukes are exponentially more efficient in terms of destruction per ounce.........
I was merely pointing out that conventional technology was already at a great enough level in which to kill hundreds of thousands of people relatively quickly.
"That's what I meant before, sorry I didn't make myself clear. "
That's cool,
, , No problem here............
"See, my views and your views of stability are apparently different. I don't view the Cold War as a time of stability in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the world has been stable at all for several hundred years. I don't think it will be stable any time soon. Yes, COMPARITIVELY (Emphasized so I'm sure you see it ) Vietnam and Korea were "Minor" conflicts. But tell that to the people who lost Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands to those two conflicts. Hard to explain to them why they died for such a "Minor" reason, don't you think? No war is trully "Minor" as the government tries to think of them, this is what I believe caused many of the mistakes in Vietnam, specifically the Air Force's inability to bomb civilian-populated areas at the begining of the war. "
My comparison absolutely positively in no shape fashion or form has the intent to belittle the ultimate sacrifices made by so many in the service of this great nation.
They all deserve Congressional Medals of Honor as far as I'm concerned.
In terms of sheer numbers Vietnam and Korea PALE in comparison to the casualties sustained in WW2.
"Also, if we had used Tactical nukes against Russian soldiers, what would have stopped them from using Strategic Nukes against us? Nothing, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Hawaii, and alot of others I'm sure the USSR had Nukes aimed at would be hurting, and our Strategic Nukes would have gone off as well, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Valdivostok..."
That in a nutshell is EXACTLY what M.A.D. is!!
(Mutually Assured Destruction)
"I don't call that stable, I call that Pin-Drop, IE, the first Pin that drops blows the whole thing blows sky high. If you can call that stable, and I suppose you can...then I wish I could share your Optimism "
Imagine what the world would be like now if the Soviets were the only Superpower.
And...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
"Sorry, I see your point, but the Russians, especially in the 70's an 80's were ahead of us in some areas, they were NOT that technologically backwards as most people seem to think, alot of our Euro-pals were much more backwards than the USSR was.
They did this despite the fact that they had very few of the rights America has as a democratic nation, as well as Stalin's purges, and the Gulags, which put alot of the brilliant minds of the USSR to work in slave-labor."
I never compared relative technological achievements, the U.S. simply OUTSPENT the Soviets, and "STAR WARS/ SDI" was the brilliant icing on the cake, the straw that broke the camels back, and nearly the US Economy as well.
"But to get to my point, you failed to tell me...What kept the world stable before nukes?"
Nothing that I know of.
Is the world that much more stable with them?
I'm glad we (The U.S.) has them, alot of them, it keeps the balance of power EVEN, even if it is/ was a global Mexican standoff.
"As to your Shotgun/Dog theory...those are Defenses, and Deterrents."
They are also weapons in my example.
Main Entry: 1weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
Date: before 12th century
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
"But you're missing my point, those things guard your home, and keep people out. This is like someone sneaking into your almost-defenseless home, and you go over to his house and blow away his wife and kids while he robs you."
I never said it was perfect (Strategic Nuclear Deterrent), but without any PURELY defensive alternative in which to negate a nuclear attack, your best bet is to have enough bombs to wack your neighbor if you don't trust them. I truly believe that Minutemen, MX, Pershings, Tridents, Poseidons, and Polaris, kept the U.S.S.R. from running amok.
"Does that make sense?"
Yup, I think we agree in more ways than we both realize, with a few relatively "minor" contentions.
"I'd love to explain further, but the post is getting rather long, and is off topic for the thread really."
Oops!!! Sorry to all concerned for the thread hijacking!!!!
"I want to keep this up, it's hard to find someone who'll keep a light heart while arguing like this."
Socrates is a personal hero of mine.
Even though the world is still shaky at best currently, I think overall it's a relatively safer place without the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. having knives at each others throats.
I'm sad to say that I don't have much faith in the current leadership of the nations of this world. If their ever was a time for great people to rise up and take the reins it's now more than ever.
I'm done.
Are you?
(I hope!!!!!)
Martin
"Is there an ICBM/Nuke Capable MRBM that I don't know about called a Pershing as well? That's quite possible. "
Go Here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/theater/pershing1.htm
To keep a long story short, American Pershings in Europe were kinda like Soviet Nukes in Cuba..............X-cept we kept ours there until arms limitation treaties started being agreed upon.........
To clarify my own statements:
"I don't believe Nukes can be used in a "Tactical" sense. To me, Tactical Sense is what WaW is, and I don't see me nuking my enemy in a game like WaW, Ever, even with a 100 hex (5km) map, I'd still basically destroy everything on the map. That's not Tactical, that's Strategic, what I view Nukes as being. That's just my viewpoint."
No argument from me on this point, I don't buy into the "tactical" use of nuclear weapons either, it can only lead to strategic destruction.
"Also...529 bombs to fire-bomb Dresden. Compare this to the Single (1) Bomber it took to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.
This is what I mean by more murderous/destructive. If every one of those B-29's only had 10 bombs, that's 5290 bombs to do that kind of damage, Vs. 1 A-Bomb."
I agree with you here as well, nukes are exponentially more efficient in terms of destruction per ounce.........
I was merely pointing out that conventional technology was already at a great enough level in which to kill hundreds of thousands of people relatively quickly.
"That's what I meant before, sorry I didn't make myself clear. "
That's cool,
, , No problem here............"See, my views and your views of stability are apparently different. I don't view the Cold War as a time of stability in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the world has been stable at all for several hundred years. I don't think it will be stable any time soon. Yes, COMPARITIVELY (Emphasized so I'm sure you see it ) Vietnam and Korea were "Minor" conflicts. But tell that to the people who lost Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands to those two conflicts. Hard to explain to them why they died for such a "Minor" reason, don't you think? No war is trully "Minor" as the government tries to think of them, this is what I believe caused many of the mistakes in Vietnam, specifically the Air Force's inability to bomb civilian-populated areas at the begining of the war. "
My comparison absolutely positively in no shape fashion or form has the intent to belittle the ultimate sacrifices made by so many in the service of this great nation.
They all deserve Congressional Medals of Honor as far as I'm concerned.
In terms of sheer numbers Vietnam and Korea PALE in comparison to the casualties sustained in WW2.
"Also, if we had used Tactical nukes against Russian soldiers, what would have stopped them from using Strategic Nukes against us? Nothing, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Hawaii, and alot of others I'm sure the USSR had Nukes aimed at would be hurting, and our Strategic Nukes would have gone off as well, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Valdivostok..."
That in a nutshell is EXACTLY what M.A.D. is!!
(Mutually Assured Destruction)
"I don't call that stable, I call that Pin-Drop, IE, the first Pin that drops blows the whole thing blows sky high. If you can call that stable, and I suppose you can...then I wish I could share your Optimism "
Imagine what the world would be like now if the Soviets were the only Superpower.
And...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
"Sorry, I see your point, but the Russians, especially in the 70's an 80's were ahead of us in some areas, they were NOT that technologically backwards as most people seem to think, alot of our Euro-pals were much more backwards than the USSR was.
They did this despite the fact that they had very few of the rights America has as a democratic nation, as well as Stalin's purges, and the Gulags, which put alot of the brilliant minds of the USSR to work in slave-labor."
I never compared relative technological achievements, the U.S. simply OUTSPENT the Soviets, and "STAR WARS/ SDI" was the brilliant icing on the cake, the straw that broke the camels back, and nearly the US Economy as well.
"But to get to my point, you failed to tell me...What kept the world stable before nukes?"
Nothing that I know of.
Is the world that much more stable with them?
I'm glad we (The U.S.) has them, alot of them, it keeps the balance of power EVEN, even if it is/ was a global Mexican standoff.
"As to your Shotgun/Dog theory...those are Defenses, and Deterrents."
They are also weapons in my example.
Main Entry: 1weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
Date: before 12th century
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
"But you're missing my point, those things guard your home, and keep people out. This is like someone sneaking into your almost-defenseless home, and you go over to his house and blow away his wife and kids while he robs you."
I never said it was perfect (Strategic Nuclear Deterrent), but without any PURELY defensive alternative in which to negate a nuclear attack, your best bet is to have enough bombs to wack your neighbor if you don't trust them. I truly believe that Minutemen, MX, Pershings, Tridents, Poseidons, and Polaris, kept the U.S.S.R. from running amok.
"Does that make sense?"
Yup, I think we agree in more ways than we both realize, with a few relatively "minor"
contentions. "I'd love to explain further, but the post is getting rather long, and is off topic for the thread really."
Oops!!! Sorry to all concerned for the thread hijacking!!!!
"I want to keep this up, it's hard to find someone who'll keep a light heart while arguing like this."
Socrates is a personal hero of mine.
Even though the world is still shaky at best currently, I think overall it's a relatively safer place without the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. having knives at each others throats.
I'm sad to say that I don't have much faith in the current leadership of the nations of this world. If their ever was a time for great people to rise up and take the reins it's now more than ever.
I'm done.
Are you?
(I hope!!!!!)
Martin
Re: YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!What he said!!!!!!!!!
War is politics by other means, however we seem to be reversing the direction and using politics as war by other means. 'Cool' may be the right word as in "What a cool horror movie."Originally posted by gainiac
"And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it. "
Right-O.......Maybe "cool" is a wrong choice of word on my part.................I've never been known for my sensitivity.
Martin
History? No they don't remember.
Re: Re: Re: Nukes aren't bad.............
And no one talks about the burning of Japan's cities, just the nukes.Originally posted by john g
London was sporadically firebombed, it did not suffer a firestorm like Dresden.
It is one thing to have buildings burning, it is another to have a fire that is so powerful that it generates gale force winds sucking the oxygen right out of the city. Many people were suffocated during the firestorm attacks that were not anywhere near the fire.
Personally I would prefer the flash death of a nuke to the coughing choking death of a firestorm.
thanks, John.
Personally I would prefer the flash death of a nuke to the coughing choking death of a firestorm.
If I were going to go and I was in the immediate death zone of the nuke, I would agree. The problem with the above is that with a Nuke:
1) there is generally a Firestorm effect following if enough flammable material is present in the 'ignition zone', and so there is also the possiblity of "coughing choking death of a firestorm"
2) there is always a varying level of radiation exposure, so that a very large number of people die by either a lethal dose of radiation (vomiting, hemmorage, loss of hair, etc) in the days following exposure or by radiation induced diseases (cancer, organ/tissue damage) in the weeks, months and years following, to say nothing about the mechanical damage caused by flying debris, building collapse, etc.
If I were going to go and I was in the immediate death zone of the nuke, I would agree. The problem with the above is that with a Nuke:
1) there is generally a Firestorm effect following if enough flammable material is present in the 'ignition zone', and so there is also the possiblity of "coughing choking death of a firestorm"
2) there is always a varying level of radiation exposure, so that a very large number of people die by either a lethal dose of radiation (vomiting, hemmorage, loss of hair, etc) in the days following exposure or by radiation induced diseases (cancer, organ/tissue damage) in the weeks, months and years following, to say nothing about the mechanical damage caused by flying debris, building collapse, etc.
