Playable/nukeable nations?

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

Oro?
level1
level1
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:18 pm

Postby Oro? » Wed May 17, 2006 8:24 pm

Phydaux wrote:
BrianBlessed wrote:The armed with x-ray lasers seems less feasible....mainly because it doesn't even make sense. To the best of my memory a Laser is in the visible light spectrum, primarily because a concentrated beam of x-rays wouldn't really do anything....

Now you shall all bow to the might of my neutrino cannon, Mwahaha
X-rays are only a step away from gamma rays, and have much more energy than visible light. An x-ray laser is more powerful than a visible light laser.

Well lasers and the like work on the same idea as a microwave when it comes to stopping nukes. The plan is to heat up the nuclear payload so it detonates in midair. Thus you just nuke the ocean or something, not a country.
User avatar
Cheshyr
level1
level1
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:37 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Postby Cheshyr » Wed May 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Or one of the cities between the launch point and the target. :-p

If it's a nuclear payload, then heat shouldn't do anything, right? The amount of energy required to start a nuclear reaction... I would assume the laser would have t be powerful enough (and targetting) to completely disable the propulsion system of tohe missile... or it's targetting system/computer/etc...[/u]
If you drink, don't park. Accidents cause people.
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Thu May 18, 2006 12:37 am

The bigger problem with lasers is that you have not much time to target a moving target, and if there's clouds or other things between you and the target, you can' t hit it.

Lasers are powerfull enough to take down a nuke, but you really have to hit it right for a long enough time to do any damage. You're much better off trying to strike it down with a rocket than a laser...

NeoThermic
MMC
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 9:47 pm
Location: Newport, S Wales / Southmere (Thamesmead), SE London

Postby MMC » Thu May 18, 2006 1:32 am

The advantage of using a rocket over a laser, is the rocket will destroy the nuke (assuming it doesn't have an ultimate-paranoid-backup-proximity-trigger(tm)), whereas the laser would have the chance (although unlikely if targetted properly) of triggering the nuke.

So which would you prefer? A pretty much guaranteed hit with a chance of nuclear detonation (even over the water), or a high likelyhood of a hit effectively no chance of nuclear detonation? Although I wouldn't mind seeing the Darwinian equivalent of Dr Strangelove appearing in Defcon :P.
daset
level3
level3
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:56 am

Postby daset » Thu May 18, 2006 5:23 am

<snip>
Last edited by daset on Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oro?
level1
level1
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:18 pm

Postby Oro? » Thu May 18, 2006 8:36 pm

Cheshyr wrote:Or one of the cities between the launch point and the target. :-p

If it's a nuclear payload, then heat shouldn't do anything, right? The amount of energy required to start a nuclear reaction... I would assume the laser would have t be powerful enough (and targetting) to completely disable the propulsion system of tohe missile... or it's targetting system/computer/etc...[/u]


Well, rocket fuel is explosive too and the missiles gotta fly somehow...

Also, like i said lasers are still in development and are gaining power.
Free Electron lasers are already able to melt metal and shoot through moisture such as clouds.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests