DEFCON 2 Chemical War

[Robo56]

I thought of a couple good ideas for a possible DEFCON 2:

After-effects of a nuclear exchange. DEFCON only covers the strategies in the first 8 hours or so of a nuclear war, but in reality, the world would have to cope for years and years after a war. Thats why I think it would be cool if you could play the actual war, but after the exchange, time would speed up and your job would be extended to things like monitoring fallout clouds and such.

Biological/chemical war. It would also be cool to have a bio or chemical war with other countries. It would provide an unexplored type of warfare where there are no ships or silos, only slow-moving clouds of death that have to be carefully moved over an enemy.

[tllotpfkamvpe]

.

[shinygerbil]

*sigh*



"Defcon 2 would be rubbish. Everybody knows you can only fire nukes at defcon 1"

[skull13]

Uhm...
They arent going to do a sequel. These guys have better things to do.

[Hyperion]

:shock:

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

[Radiant Caligula]

BRING ON THE CHEMICAL WARFARE I SAY!



But they better include a fart machine as well. Fog of Fart.




Imagine it, a pre-emptive strike of fart covering the entire globe.

[Montyphy]

I guess it would bring a whole new meaning to Fog of War...

[Grandstone]

*sigh*



"Defcon 2 would be rubbish. Everybody knows you can only fire nukes at defcon 1"

You might deploy chemical weapons during Defcon 2, rather than after the war.

Seriously, OP, what's the point of launching even more death and destruction after the major exchange of nukes? I've reduced Asia to a population of 2 million (in a game against the AI, which didn't put a navy in the Pacific for some reason, so it was easy)--life wouldn't even be worth living if everything and everyone for hundreds of miles was gone. Not to mention that I would only get a measly four points for continuing the mass murder.

[Feud]

life wouldn't even be worth living if everything and everyone for hundreds of miles was gone.

I disagree.

Certainly some people, when faced with the prospect you just described, wouldn't find life to be worth living, and such a life would almost certainly be a drastic change from the life that any of us are used to enjoying. However, such a life wouldn't be uncommon for other people, and history has shown that groups routinely seek such conditions. For example, the Bedouins of Arabia or the nomadic tribes of the Asian steppe wouldn't find such a situation to be either disastrous or uncommon. The mountain men of American history frequently sought out solitude from civilization, and various pioneer groups sought new home far removed from others.

Now in the context that you are describing, that of a post nuclear world, life would most assuredly be very different from what it is now, and some people would rather give up and die then face the hardships that it would bring. However, to say that it wouldn't be worth living is to say that one's happiness and purpose are derived from those around us, the people and things that make up our daily life. If such is the case than any number of events would thus make life "not worth living", be it a car wreck, loss of employment, burglary, etc. If, however, one finds their happiness from someplace else, someplace that can't be stolen from you by force or deceit, then regardless of what happens life will always be worth living.

[tllotpfkamvpe]

.

[Grandstone]

life wouldn't even be worth living if everything and everyone for hundreds of miles was gone.

I disagree.

Certainly some people, when faced with the prospect you just described, wouldn't find life to be worth living, and such a life would almost certainly be a drastic change from the life that any of us are used to enjoying. However, such a life wouldn't be uncommon for other people, and history has shown that groups routinely seek such conditions. For example, the Bedouins of Arabia or the nomadic tribes of the Asian steppe wouldn't find such a situation to be either disastrous or uncommon. The mountain men of American history frequently sought out solitude from civilization, and various pioneer groups sought new home far removed from others.

Now in the context that you are describing, that of a post nuclear world, life would most assuredly be very different from what it is now, and some people would rather give up and die then face the hardships that it would bring. However, to say that it wouldn't be worth living is to say that one's happiness and purpose are derived from those around us, the people and things that make up our daily life. If such is the case than any number of events would thus make life "not worth living", be it a car wreck, loss of employment, burglary, etc. If, however, one finds their happiness from someplace else, someplace that can't be stolen from you by force or deceit, then regardless of what happens life will always be worth living.

Actually, that's a pretty reasonable response, though I'm surprised you took the time to respond to that part of the post (I figured if anybody was going to respond to anything, they would respond to the equation of people to points at the end). Well said. I'd just like to say that while the nomadic life might suit people who are born into it, I presumed that the people who would most be in shock at the end of a nuclear war would be the people who had lived sedentary lives in the cities. I imagine life after an apocalypse that leaves only a little more than two million people (though that could just be two million city dwellers, with the rural population being unimportant to the game) on the entire continent of Asia would be pretty bad for wanderers--all of the cities are irradiated to some degree, which prevents going to the ruins to scavenge for food, the local farms would probably be under constant assault from refugees, meaning there isn't much food for anyone, and help will not come from the outside for many years because of the aforementioned radiation. In all this, I didn't mention that sedentary people would not easily adjust, if adjust they did, from their former lives to ones more closely resembling a nomad's.

So, yeah, you're right, I exaggerated and I should have said "life would be incredibly hard after a nuclear apocalypse."

[Feud]

What's the question?

[tllotpfkamvpe]

.

[Feud]

Were you praising jesus again?

Beg your pardon?

[skull13]

Weren't we in the process of explaining to yet another person why I.V would *insert random unthinkable act here* than make a sequel to DEFCON? Seriously, there isn't any story! Just be happy they don't lock every thread that suggests a sequel (ASW has gone that far for EV4) Ask anyone there, they give you a list of about, oh, maybe 85 topics, half of which are locked by the second post or horribly derailed like this one.