Anti-Naval nuking

In-depth tactical discussion on how to lose the least

Moderator: Defcon moderators

Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

anti-naval nuking

Postby Duck'N'Cover » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:58 am

Some tips for anti-naval nuking:

- If you splash enough ocean spray onto the nukes' exhaust, their engines will go out.
- Try using a decoy.
- Try staying perfectly still. With any luck, your opponent will think you would have tried to dodge, and aimed the nuke in your anticipated path.
- Get a cloaking device
- Use the Space Laser (which Reagan tried to put up and now Obama is finishing)
I've been known on online games as Prokofiev Pirate on Myth: TFL and Myth II; The Egressor on Halo 2, and Foibleson and Halo 3.
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:05 pm

Postby Blackbeard » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:41 am

- Put all your Silos right next to your coast and huddle under their protection at Defcon 1 :) .
User avatar
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Romania

Postby Mojo » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:08 am

Your complains about naval nuking have no point... I am not a naval nuking fan, don't get me wrong, but you mistake. Long time ago MOR was upset like you about ship nuking, and when we played a game 1 vs 1 was agree both to not use nukes against fleet. Was last time when i heard MOR complaining about that. His navy was crushed so bad that he used every time in our next games naval nuking :lol: He understand in that game that naval nuking is not his enemy... You can learn to counter very effective this tactic, just don't give up :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Postby W(p) » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:15 pm

I hope I'm not being off-topic here, but I would like to note that nuclear nuking is not inauthentic.

In fact tactical nuclear weapons are an integral part of the "defense" (preemptive attack or outright aggression, really ) thought in the USSR and probably China (since it copied every Soviet concept in political and military matters). That is why military equipment was made to be resistant against radiation (thicker materials and the electronics was in critical cases still based on vacuum tubes).

The USSR navy was armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, which made it a credible threat to the US - it could nuke its way out of a blockade. I think the biggest part of Soviet tactical arsenal was dismantled in the late 80s and with US funding during the 90s. It was a major gesture on the part Gorbachev that the USSR was no longer an aggressive power.

The problem is still relevant today - that is why the US is so sensitive to recent Chinese development is naval missile technology. It is a way of changing the status quo much faster than catching up with the US in ICBM numbers. The nuclear strategy of countries that are not the US and the USSR is usually based on the possibility to inflict significant damage to the enemy, not necessarily total destruction. There would be no deterrence to the US, if US military sophistication increases to the point that they intercept all ICBMs and immediately respond with a strike from the seas near China. That is why it is known that Chinese Military intelligence (again I suppose its modeled on the Soviet GRU) spares no expenses to have full information on missile technology developments in the US.

Return to “Strategic Air Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest