sorry kiddy, you have to be ten to eanr your vault citizenship and your pipboy. XDfozzy360 said:
Fallout: Not Like a Real-Life Nuclear Holocaust
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Totally in agreement.Internet Kraken said:
It's always been said that Fallout is set in a wasteland that was based on the technological advancements and thoughts/theories of the 1940s/50s, with a few key differences. The silicon chip, AFAIK, was never invented in the Fallout universe - it's why everything operates on valves and so forth. Heck, you can tell just by looking at things in the Fallout world - The cars, the adverts, the buildings.
Bit different. That game only has one nuclear explosion (Chernobyl blowing up again) while we're talking about all out nuclear war. But yeah, equally as unrealistic, especially in relation to mutants and space time anomalies.Sacman said:
In related news, there where no dragons in the dark ages, no vampires in prague and it isn't possible to shoot fireballs from your hands..
What part of fantasy does he not get.
Ofcourse radiation does not give you call mutant powers in real life. Assuming you dont die of radiation poisoning directly you get cancer. But that would make a pretty dull game..
What part of fantasy does he not get.
Ofcourse radiation does not give you call mutant powers in real life. Assuming you dont die of radiation poisoning directly you get cancer. But that would make a pretty dull game..
I have mixed opinions on what he's saying. I think a lot of it depends on what kind of nuclear technology was used. A lot of people think of all nukes being like the ones we tested publically, or dropped on Japan. The thing is that nuclear technology has not remained static after that point. People tend to forget how many nuclear tests are done underground and in isolated locations by various nations, both secretly and outed.
The truth is that today's nukes can acheive a variety of effects. What's more in a truel "World War III" scenario, nukes are not the only weapons that are going to be brought into play, rather they are going to be used alongside chemical and biological weapons, as well as things like the infamous Neutron Bomb.
A lot of it also depends on interception technology which people tend to forget about. ICBMs are on the verge of becoming obselete. The US has freaked out Russia by demonstratng some of it's tech which violates treaties with the USSR, and China has been using ground based lasers to blind satellites which means that they could use it to stop (or seriously hamper) ICBM strikes which require targeting with satellites and computers, sure there are other ways to target but none that are "automated" in the World War III sense. (and if you don't believe me on the china thing, do a search for the key words China, Satellite, and Lasers).
The scenario in Fallout becomes a bit more plausible when you consider that our technology is a bit more advanced than the Romans, especially our record keeping. We aren't going to have a lot of barbarians running around burning books 15 seconds after the war, and people aren't going to degenerate that quickly. What's more the Fallout games take place in the US where for the moment we have a technological edge, and are liable to fare the best out of anyone in the world, barring some kind of "survival by omission" like what happemed with Africa in Heinlan's "Farnham's Freehold". Indeed by some estimates if the US lost all allies and engaged in an all out war we'd have between a 20-40% chance of surviving relatively intact (though with a lot of damage), on the other hand the rest of the world would have a 0% chance of survival because we have enough firepower to kill everyone on earth with WMD 10x over. In a real scenario however the US would have allies, and a lot of allied nations who weren't stupid would have defensive bases like the one Russia threatned to nuke Poland over which would give them abit more coverage.
The point being that the "OMG, nukes hit the ground and kick radiactive dirt into the air killing everyone!" scenario of past decades isn't quite accurate any more. The nuclear nations with weapons that crude are also among the least likely to ever be able to successfully hit anything either due to lack of delivery systems, or simple interception. A nation with a half a dozen nuclear warheads or whatever isn't exactly going to saturate a defense grid.
In short he'd need to provide more information IMO, I confess to not being an expert, but this seems a lot like he's using the same assumption as movies like "Wargames" without taking progress into account. Indeed one of the big fears for a lot of people today is that nuclear weapons are going to become entirely obselete due to defensive systems making delivery almost impossible. That would end the nuclear umbrella ensuring world peace (no more MAD) and bring us back to an age of conventional warfare... and when you look at the amount of conventional forces nations like Russia have stockpiled, and China is building up (complete with boats to deliver them) while nations like the US are downsizing and increasingly putting their faith in technologies that might be going in the wrong direction... well things could be getting interesting.
In the case of Fallout, this is also a world where there was an alternate history. We have powered armor, personal energy weapons, giant robots, and cars that were apparently running on nuclear generators by the lore. Who knows what kind of defensive systems were in place, or what kind of payload those nukes were actually carrying, or even what the intent of the people firing the nukes was. Did they hit the ground to try and stir up a lot of radioactive fallout (like the name of the game), or did they mostly airburst?
Given that the two superpowers were the US and China, it's not surprising that areas like DC would have survived, because they would probably have had some of the highest concentrations of defense since this war was a "slow burn" one instead of one that went nuclear immediatly. It started with conventional warfare, and got worse.
Just a lot of rambling thoughts, the bottom line is that I think Fallout is a bit more plausible than he gives it credit for, especially seeing as we're dealing with a science fiction universe where while a lot of things are "retro" they also have technology that is far more advanced than anyting we have in reality.
The truth is that today's nukes can acheive a variety of effects. What's more in a truel "World War III" scenario, nukes are not the only weapons that are going to be brought into play, rather they are going to be used alongside chemical and biological weapons, as well as things like the infamous Neutron Bomb.
A lot of it also depends on interception technology which people tend to forget about. ICBMs are on the verge of becoming obselete. The US has freaked out Russia by demonstratng some of it's tech which violates treaties with the USSR, and China has been using ground based lasers to blind satellites which means that they could use it to stop (or seriously hamper) ICBM strikes which require targeting with satellites and computers, sure there are other ways to target but none that are "automated" in the World War III sense. (and if you don't believe me on the china thing, do a search for the key words China, Satellite, and Lasers).
The scenario in Fallout becomes a bit more plausible when you consider that our technology is a bit more advanced than the Romans, especially our record keeping. We aren't going to have a lot of barbarians running around burning books 15 seconds after the war, and people aren't going to degenerate that quickly. What's more the Fallout games take place in the US where for the moment we have a technological edge, and are liable to fare the best out of anyone in the world, barring some kind of "survival by omission" like what happemed with Africa in Heinlan's "Farnham's Freehold". Indeed by some estimates if the US lost all allies and engaged in an all out war we'd have between a 20-40% chance of surviving relatively intact (though with a lot of damage), on the other hand the rest of the world would have a 0% chance of survival because we have enough firepower to kill everyone on earth with WMD 10x over. In a real scenario however the US would have allies, and a lot of allied nations who weren't stupid would have defensive bases like the one Russia threatned to nuke Poland over which would give them abit more coverage.
The point being that the "OMG, nukes hit the ground and kick radiactive dirt into the air killing everyone!" scenario of past decades isn't quite accurate any more. The nuclear nations with weapons that crude are also among the least likely to ever be able to successfully hit anything either due to lack of delivery systems, or simple interception. A nation with a half a dozen nuclear warheads or whatever isn't exactly going to saturate a defense grid.
In short he'd need to provide more information IMO, I confess to not being an expert, but this seems a lot like he's using the same assumption as movies like "Wargames" without taking progress into account. Indeed one of the big fears for a lot of people today is that nuclear weapons are going to become entirely obselete due to defensive systems making delivery almost impossible. That would end the nuclear umbrella ensuring world peace (no more MAD) and bring us back to an age of conventional warfare... and when you look at the amount of conventional forces nations like Russia have stockpiled, and China is building up (complete with boats to deliver them) while nations like the US are downsizing and increasingly putting their faith in technologies that might be going in the wrong direction... well things could be getting interesting.
In the case of Fallout, this is also a world where there was an alternate history. We have powered armor, personal energy weapons, giant robots, and cars that were apparently running on nuclear generators by the lore. Who knows what kind of defensive systems were in place, or what kind of payload those nukes were actually carrying, or even what the intent of the people firing the nukes was. Did they hit the ground to try and stir up a lot of radioactive fallout (like the name of the game), or did they mostly airburst?
Given that the two superpowers were the US and China, it's not surprising that areas like DC would have survived, because they would probably have had some of the highest concentrations of defense since this war was a "slow burn" one instead of one that went nuclear immediatly. It started with conventional warfare, and got worse.
Just a lot of rambling thoughts, the bottom line is that I think Fallout is a bit more plausible than he gives it credit for, especially seeing as we're dealing with a science fiction universe where while a lot of things are "retro" they also have technology that is far more advanced than anyting we have in reality.
Besides the United States and Soviet Union, France and China are understood to have tested neutron or enhanced radiation bombs in the past, with France apparently leading the field with an early test of the technology in 1967 and an "actual" neutron bomb in 1980. The 1999 Cox Report indicates that China is able to produce neutron bombs, although no country is currently known to deploy them.Therumancer said:
Also, Nuclear fallout does not depend on the type of warhead, it depends on the meteorological conditions of the area. Furthermore, having a detonation in or above water has different effects as well.
First we need to consider that a ground detonation results in a great deal of fallout, and in the case of war (where one country is trying to invade another) such detonations are tactically unsound. The only exception is when you are attempting to take out a fortified location such as Cheyenne Mountain.
During tests, scientists have also noted that blast injuries and thermal burns far outnumber the injuries caused due to radiation when dealing with nuclear blasts.
Also: Nuclear fallout from a power plant is significantly different than that caused by a warhead.
In the event of a nuclear holocaust, I hereby offer open invitations to all my gamer brethren in the rest of the world. Don't worry about bombs, I doubt anyone would want to blow up the largest source of Uranium on the planet [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Australia]. Besides, we're a relatively low priority target on the international scale. Just remember to wipe your feet on the way in 
Well no, i just mean, in general, he cant be right about everything.Captain Placeholder said:
Im not saying mutations alone. I mean the whole atmosphere. He says it would be alot worse then portaryed in Fallout, but thats only speculation. You can simulate all you want, but it doesnt mean your going to be 100% right.
The sims is technically a simulation. But that doesnt mean when theres a fire someones going to stand there screaming and pointing at it.
All im saying is, no matter how sure you are, things can always be different. If the population is going to be as low as he said it would be, then that would mean food would be much easyer to aquire and keep.
"A nuclear war is going to be much worse, so we're talking about perhaps civilization as we know it crumbling for perhaps millennia."
And we wouldent go back to the stoneage. I doubt every book, computer, and instruction manual on the planet would be destroyed. Civilization will regrow, and be back up and running within a few hundred years at the most. People get together, we would get electricity working ((protable generators or better)), contact other people, breed, and civilization is back on track, but with less traffic.
Sure, inbreeding is problem, but we would eventually get past it.
people really over dramatize the end of the world. Not every contry is going to be nuked. Not every civilization will die. Sure, 70% of the population could burn in the radiation, but that would still leave 30% to regrow and repopulate.
So every device, generator, powerplant, and dam ((which generates power)) would become completely inoperable? And every inch of the earth would wither and die?Ultratwinkie said:
I have more then a hard time beliving that to be true. Science has been wrong in the past. We THINK this will happen, but we wont be sure until it really does.
I belive more in the 2012 end of the world then the entire plant freezing solid and everything dieing from a few nukes.
^Edit^
