Nuclear Bomb Question

[dertechie]

Regardless of the type of weapon used, infrastructure/IC re-generation is too rapid. Europe and Japan are rebuilt in a month, and (I think?) without a cost to IC for reconstruction. Perhaps there needs to be a difference between damaged and annihilated IC/infrastructure. If it's damaged, it can repair itself with a slight cost in industrial production (maybe as part of the replacements slider). If it's eliminated, it needs to be rebuilt as if it was never there.

You mistake 'IC repaired to full capacity' for 'untouched'. There's a huge difference there. Most of the 'permanent' damage was to civilian structures that aren't represented in game. You can fix the factories, board up the broken windows, route around the blocked streets, and generally repair the area so that strategically it is close enough to the way it was, but on the ground, things may look very different. Given necessity (and if you're getting strat bombed, you've got that in spades), you can make a lot of things work that you wouldn't expect.

 

[unmerged(20913)]

They knew about the theory, not the practical impact on human health. The Americans had no idea their bombs would "dirty" an area after the initial blast, and that it would make people ill weeks and months after the impact, much less give cancer to their grandchildren. They thought of nukes largely as a big bomb.

In this timeframe, sending in troops into a freshly-nuked city was thus an entirely reasonable mistake.

I think HoI2 modeled nukes GREAT. They were overpowered in HoI1. They should cause immense short term damage and SOME lasting damage but it shouldn't essentially turn the province into a stretch of desert. They should cause immense strength damage and wipe away all org from units in that province, but not destroy every single division.

the americans didnt know?

Werent the first people to discover radiations ill effects americans in like 1910? or 1920??

they died from it iirc.

cmon people

 

[unmerged(84132)]

the americans didnt know?

Werent the first people to discover radiations ill effects americans in like 1910? or 1920??

they died from it iirc.

cmon people

Someone knowing, someone telling the populous, and someone caring that the populous was being slowly killed are three different things.

Did someone know? Yes, to some degree. To what degree, you would have to ask someone with more knowledge on the subject.

Did they tell people that lived near test zones, that lived in places that got bombed, or anyone else for that matter? Nope.

Did they care these people were being affected? While this is subjective, I am going to have to go with nope. If they really cared they would have relocated these people. The Japanese and US Governments would have relocated people. The Russia Government would have done more to prevent exposure.

Secrecy, money, and denial played a large reason why civilians that were exposed were either never told, or left to their own devices. Its near impossible (from a monetary and practical point) to relocate cities worth of people spread out over larger areas. Also, during war and threats of war they could not be troubled to tell anyone or attempt to help.

These policies of secrecy, denial, and cover-ups did not stop with WW2. It happened with Agent Orange during Vietnam, it happened during Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom with depleted uranium and other chemical agents, and I would not be suprised if it happens in future wars as well.

Once again: someone knowing, someone telling the people exposed, and someone doing something about it are three completely different things.

 

[Sirveri]

Honestly, the general populous never was told. In Utah people were never told they were exposed to high amounts of radiation until the government decided they should take responsibility for it. Most people in this country still does not know that California had a nuclear distaster in 1959 when they were testing new forms of coolants for nuclear power plants (just look up Simi Valley California). Everyone knows 3-Mile Island, but Simi Valley was much bigger. How many people know about the wide scale nuclear contamination in Oak Ridge, TN?

Actually the majority of the worst US nuclear accidents occured in Idaho. Mainly SL-1, which was the only nuclear accident on US soil to result in human fatalities. It released 70 curies of radio iodine while TMI only release 13-17 Curies. Other accidents which occured there were the MTR Fission break and the HTRE-3 Reactivity Accident.

Back on topic. In HoI2 : DD Arma bombs had differing levels of power which would cause varied levels of provincial damage. The HoI 2 wiki gives specifics.

A brief breakdown for those too lazy to click the link:
The first REAL nuclear bomb (semi fission) would permanently reduce IC, Infra, and MP to apx 50% and temporarily reduce it to 20% (MP excluded since it doesn't regen). So it would slowly rebuild, but never be the same as before. The Fusion bomb basically wiped the province down to 0 in all stats (perm infra to 0.23%, temp infra to 0.1%).

Given the currently shown 'small' province sizes (which is likely going to contain the BEST nuclear targets), a fusion bomb (probably 20Mt) wiping out a city the size of metropolitan London isn't unreasonable. Also for game balance purposes nuclear weaponry MUST be more highly powered than conventional bombing raids because of the in game effort required to acquire and deploy them and their highly limited nature. Wiping out 1/2 the industry and infrastructure could be considered reasonable with a semi fission bomb because a large ammount of the areas industrial might would be focused on finding out what happened and recovery and other damage control and assessment issues.

 

[unmerged(20913)]

Ever see a film produced back then? Not a movie, but informational. They thought it would be a problem for a few days, and that most radiation would be stopped by a basic GI's uniform.

most radiation is stopped by your skin and what your wearing from a nuclear blasts fallout. if its knocked off soon after no worries.

not direct radiation. even so direct radiation for these small nukes wasnt very bad i forget the distances involved to be negligable risk.

when you inhale it and ingest it is when problems start.

i am speaking fallout.

 

[Filou]

They didn't even know about the radiation. Not that it would stop the Soviets, they detonated nukes then had Red Army units go play around in it to see how a fight would go after the use of tactical nukes.

Why do you single out the USSR? The USA made plenty of nuclear tests with soldiers.
Now it's pretty easy to find videos of these tests on youtube actually.

 

[oribiasi]

Regardless of the type of weapon used, infrastructure/IC re-generation is too rapid. Europe and Japan are rebuilt in a month, and (I think?) without a cost to IC for reconstruction. Perhaps there needs to be a difference between damaged and annihilated IC/infrastructure. If it's damaged, it can repair itself with a slight cost in industrial production (maybe as part of the replacements slider). If it's eliminated, it needs to be rebuilt as if it was never there.

This makes sense to me; but whenever I read WWII history books, especially stuff by Albert Speer, the German Minister of Armnaments, he always says that large-scale bombing, while devestating and terrifying, typically would be a lot of show with little results. Yes, it would kill lots of people/destroy homes, but unless they had excellent accuracy (which they didn't) then key targets would not be destroyed.

Thing is, in HoI there really are no "key" targets, save rocket sites and nuclear test facilities (provided they are even in HoI3), so this is abstracted.

 

[Kodos666]

the radioactive fallout from an nuclear device is mostly composed of short-lived isotopes, while the fallout from a nuclear accident is composed of longer-living isotopes.
The cases of radiation sickness in the Japanese population occurred due to the immediate radiation from the explosion itself (compare to the accident which killed Louis Slotin). After a few weeks the radiation is weak enough to enter the area without fearing effects of radiation poisoning.

Source

Ohh. Emue'd severla times. I should speed up my research.

 

[unmerged(146237)]

Maybe a returning infrastructure isn't that bad, if the units passing through the province suffer some radiation damage?

 

[oribiasi]

It occurs to me that even if this is not implemented in HoI3 in a logical way, it can always be a modded tech; say, for instance, along with the ability to produce nuclear weapons, that same country would also gain an understanding of its effects, and hence their units would not suffer as greatly from fallout, since they'd know to avoid it as best as they can, whereas countries without much nuclear knowledge might be dumb enough to eat radiated stuff, or whatever.

 

[Sirveri]

the radioactive fallout from an nuclear device is mostly composed of short-lived isotopes, while the fallout from a nuclear accident is composed of longer-living isotopes.
The cases of radiation sickness in the Japanese population occurred due to the immediate radiation from the explosion itself (compare to the accident which killed Louis Slotin). After a few weeks the radiation is weak enough to enter the area without fearing effects of radiation poisoning.

Source

Ohh. Emue'd severla times. I should speed up my research.

There are other substantial factors in play regarding this. The principal issue is height of airburst. A lower airburst will expose more earth to neutron flux, creating more activated particulates and more dust. Another issue is neutron utilisation, basically the fission products created all follow a predictable pattern and have been broken down to a percentage chance out to two decimal place at a minimum (x.xx%). However some of those materials have a higher cross section for absorption than others and thus depending on the residual neutron flux more of those materials will consume the spare neutrons thus converting to differant isotopes which would generally lower their half lives considerably. Another issue of concern is decay particulates. In a large number of cases the initial fission product isn't signifigantly dangerous but after its initial decay transmutes into a much more dangerous particle. The prime example would be the 135 series starting with Iodine 135, which decays to Xenon 135 which then decays to Cesium 135 (all beta minus decays). The half life of Iodine is apx 8 hours (from memory check a chart of the nuclides for the exact numbers) while the half life for Xenon 135 is a bit longer (I remember 10 hours, but could be wrong). However the real dangerous culprit here is the Cs135 which has a half life of 30+ years and emits a 5MeV gamma ray. It's actually one of the principal nuclides of concern after a nuclear accident (along with Strontium 90).

Finally if a country wants to be a real dick they can surround the package in a Cobalt sphere. Cobalt 60 is the activated version of cobalt, has a half life of 5 years and emits two 2MeV gamma rays upon. These gamma rays are actually at one of the most dangerous energy intensities because at these levels shielding is least effective due to properties regarding the photoelectric effect. The 5 year half life is short enough that a small ammount will give signifigant doses of radiation but long enough that makes it difficult to wait for it to decay back to background. It's basically the best way to use a nuclear weapon to 'salt' the earth.

 

[ForzaA]

While there is a LOT of damage that can result from radiation exposure.. I think you're all greatly overestimating the *short term* effect of exposure to radiation...
Yes, if you stand right in the blast, you're dead, probably likewise if you show up shortly after.

However, in terms of "radiation damage" to your units (ie. actually affecting combat capability), such an effect would only be 'reasonable' for hours, *maybe* days.. In other words, not really worth the trouble (there's already degraded performance from the infrastructure drop)

 

[Lightning Jack]

I think that the best way to portray a nuclear blast ingame is to smash your computer with a hammer then burn all of the pieces.

The nukes dropped on Japan were relatively small compared to todays nukes.

Fat Man 21kt
Little Boy 18kt

Even so, you would need a thousand bombers attacking one city to get the same result. Infrastructure, ic, and manpower should be lowered greatly. Almost zero and recover over years, not months. In addition, most units stationed in the province should be shattered. A few units should get a chance to survive but at very low strength/org. Units that stay in the province or travel thru should suffer a large attrition penalty for the first month. my 2 cents.

 

[The Balbinater]

However, in terms of "radiation damage" to your units (ie. actually affecting combat capability), such an effect would only be 'reasonable' for hours, *maybe* days..

try years in some cases. lawsuits are still flying even today... a few years back a local family where i live tried to sue the government due to exposure during the manhattan project. the basis of the lawsuit was for radiation exposure, and the fact that MOST of the people employed in the manhattan project had NO STINKIN IDEA what they were doing or what they were working on...as national security was more important then people's health:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1370116/manhattan_project_blamed_for_cancer/

news article regarding a lawsuit in 2008!!!

 

[Baneslave]

try years in some cases. lawsuits are still flying even today... a few years back a local family where i live tried to sue the government due to exposure during the manhattan project. the basis of the lawsuit was for radiation exposure, and the fact that MOST of the people employed in the manhattan project had NO STINKIN IDEA what they were doing or what they were working on...as national security was more important then people's health:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1370116/manhattan_project_blamed_for_cancer/

news article regarding a lawsuit in 2008!!!

This is not within HoI3's timeline. Also, that didn't effect combat efficiency.

 

[Meadhros]

Actually the long term radiation risks from nuclear bombs are not that great.
For Hiroshima it is estimated the blast and shockwave imidiately killed about 70,000 people. By the end of the year another 90,000-140,000 died from imidiate radiation, burns etc. The total casualties by 1950 appears to be about 200,000. In the next 40 years however, the cancer and leukemia casualties are "only" 9% higher then avarage, 89 leukemia and 339 solid cancers.

Thus if we take this estimates, about 33% of total casualties would die within the day, another 60% in the following year, another 7,5% in the following 4 years and 0,1% in the following 40 years.

Most cold war Survive and Protect films stated that the danger from Fallout dust should be down to a minimum in 2 weeks, so any troops passing through would hardly suffer casualties. Even within those 14 days it would be quite easy to protect via gas masks etc.

Remember, fallout is NOT radiation, it is radioactive dust which is harmfull when inhaled or consumed.

 

[Sirveri]

Remember, fallout is NOT radiation, it is radioactive dust which is harmfull when inhaled or consumed.

This depends on the emitted radiation. While true for alpha and beta it is false for gamma and neutron radiation which will easily penetrate clothing.

Most radionuclides decay via beta decay, which is a beta particle followed by a gamma in order to achieve entropic energy state. These gammas can be intense, or fairly weak.

A bomb with an inefficient fission device will also yield more heavy nuclei, some of which decay via spontaneous fission which releases neutrons. Notably Pu 239, which is a common nuclear weapons material due to the ease with which it can be refined from spent fuel rods (compared to enriching Uranium to the proper level of 235).

But I agree with the general thrust of your arguements. Bombs of this era wouldn't cause a signifigant radioactive excursion outside the immediate blast area.

 

[Raczynski]

If this has already been adressed, my apologies:

Previously, i.e., in both HoI1 and HoI2, a nuclear bomb would destroy all IC, infrastructure and divisions/air corps in the province. However, the infrastructure would usually "re-generate," or whatever, and divisions can travel through the area as well.

This doesn't seem reasonable; is this fixed in HoI3?

When you consider the size of some HoI2 provinces, it was very reasonable. This is different in HoI3, or courae.

 

[Fire_Unionist]

It occurs to me that even if this is not implemented in HoI3 in a logical way, it can always be a modded tech;

It wouldn't be worth it. I can't see anyone going out of their way to get it.

 

[Meadhros]

This depends on the emitted radiation. While true for alpha and beta it is false for gamma and neutron radiation which will easily penetrate clothing.

Most radionuclides decay via beta decay, which is a beta particle followed by a gamma in order to achieve entropic energy state. These gammas can be intense, or fairly weak.

A bomb with an inefficient fission device will also yield more heavy nuclei, some of which decay via spontaneous fission which releases neutrons. Notably Pu 239, which is a common nuclear weapons material due to the ease with which it can be refined from spent fuel rods (compared to enriching Uranium to the proper level of 235).

But I agree with the general thrust of your arguements. Bombs of this era wouldn't cause a signifigant radioactive excursion outside the immediate blast area.

Well, there is ofcours imidiate radiation, emitted when the bomb goes off. But say if you enter the area 5 days after zero hour, would you still be at risk from radiation poisoning, safe from the Fallout dust?