Welcome Guest, Not a member yet? Create Account  


[OOC]Flash News

#11

(08-06-2016, 08:19 PM)Seniar Wrote: And this is an alternate reality, though I can understand if you want something more realistic

I see! If you want to develop an alternate reality (which is something I find very interesting), you might want to try here. Smile

#12

Oke


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#13

Seeing as I've already made two, uh... Things, I'll just, um, do some stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#14

You are more than welcome to develop your main canon nation here. The more is always the merrier.

#15

Thanks, I've just edited the posts to be more realistic, hope they're okay.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#16

I have to admit, as awful as the concept would've been for the people in your nation, there was something so funny about a civil war over dog food. Tongue

#17

Lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#18

So... Proc. I did some math, cuz I felt those nuclear weapons numbers were out of whack.

The entire WORLD, irl, only has about 16 thousand nukes, as of right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_st...ar_weapons

It costs an estimated $1 Trillion every decade for the world to maintain that arsenal.

Since your min. is 20k nukes, to which the 16k is about 8/10ths the size, you're spending an estimated $1 Trillion every 8 years, or $125 billion a year, for your arsenal. That is strictly for maintenance. That does not include building more.

To maintain the 40k number, to which the current global 16k is 4/10ths of, you're spending an estimated $1 Trillion every 4 years, or $250 billion a year, for your Arsenal. That is, again, strictly for maintenance, and does not include the construction of the 20k more, which will be addressed in a second.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense.../22224727/
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/us-...-overview/
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrop...resources/

As for the actual materials, garnering them would only cost $1.5 million a bomb, and upgrading them would cost anywhere between $2 million(for smaller, Tactical Weapons, in this case the US W76), and up to $20 million(for larger, Several Hundred Kiloton weapons, like the US B61). So, that's at least $30 billion for new nuclear materials, plus anywhere between $40 billion - $400 billion to upgrade the current 20k, so, you're spending anywhere between $70-$430 billion just on buying and constructing new/updated warheads for the entire arsenal, and that's before delivery systems, however, it is *not* on top of the current maintenance cost.

As for the actual delivery systems, standard, un-modernized Minuteman III Missile systems cost ~$50 million. Updated ones cost $85 million. Standard US Submarine Trident Missiles cost $100 million, and the updated ones cost $140 million. So, just for delivery systems, you're looking at anywhere from$100 Billion(For Cluster Warheads, 2,000 missiles) and $1 Trillion for 20,000 *old* Minuteman Missiles to $380 Billion(Clusters, 2k missiles) to $3.8 Trillion for *new* Trident systems. And that is *not* including maintenance costs. Specifically to update your current launch systems, For 20,000 Minuteman III's(2,000 with Clusters) would be anywhere $30 billion(cluster warheads) to $300 Billion, or for 20,000 Tridents(2,000 with Cluster) it'd be $280 Billion to $2.8 Trillion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/build-n...d=11016501
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2...6vrJLgrKUk

So, as it stands... To bring your total nuclear weapons systems up to 40,000 Warheads is looking to cost you anywhere from $130 Billion to $3.83 Trillion(the 3.83 Number, which would be about 5% of the Real World's Economy), and those would be on top of the $125 Billion you are already spending to maintain your current arsenal. And to Update your current 20k would cost you anywhere in the "ballpark" of $70 Billion - $3.2 Trillion USD. And the only reason those bottom prices are so low, is because I can't find the price for a nuclear cluster warhead(which is probably extremely expensive, probably more than the simple 10 Warheads equivalent I used in the low price). Very simply : You're looking at a stupidly expensive project That's essentially a waste of time.

I get the feeling that you wanted to make a strong appearance as a world power, and maybe as a new dominant power as Selene(RP wise) backs off, but, let me assure you, doing it through Nuclear weapons is *not* the smart way to go about that. With the minimum amount of money spent($130 Billion), you could buy:

~48.1 Billion rounds of ammunition(at ~0.37 US Dollars a round)
~93,600 Modern US M1A2 Abrams Tanks(at about ~$9 million apiece)
1383 Rafale C Fighter Jets(at $94 million a fighter)
29 US Nimtz Class Aircraft Carriers( at about $4.5 Billion a ship)

Among many other far more useful items that would definitely make you appear militarily strong, because most often, and something that has been a case thruout nuclear history, everyone has a "Fire Second" policy, meaning they won't be the ones to launch nuclear weapons first, essentially making them an inert threat, since all they do is sit there. It'd be far cheaper for your military to invest in literally *anything* else. Tanks, Bullets, Planes, Aircraft Carriers, literally anything. Otherwise, you've just got a bunch of glowing rock sitting in a really fancy rocket waiting for the world to end, which, let me assure you, no nation in the history of the world would ever want to be responsible for. Your numbers are from something at the height of the Cold War, but, you don't even have an *official* rival to legitimately have an arms race with, simply because you've been in isolation since the 1000's. It's unreasonable at best, Crazy and absolutely mathematically unrealistic at worst, for you to have 20,000 nuclear weapons.

And, in conclusion, you wouldn't need 20,000 nukes to end the world by a longshot. You wouldn't even need half that many to kill of the 7 billion or so people we have on the Real Earth. But, even that many, less than half of your arsenal, is still far hundreds of times larger than needed to cause a cataclysmic event. You would need 10-100, at most, to cause a worldly devastating event, In real Life. With 100 bombs, in between 10-100 Megatons each, you could single-handedly release enough radiation into the air, that it would interfere with basic human life, causing an exponential rise in cancer rates, birth defects, reproductive issues, and a number of other health crises that would simply bring an end to the human race as we know it. But in the modern day, that is a minor concern. The larger concern is the effect that a limited nuclear exchange could have on the climate(which I haven't researched, but I am interested in looking into).

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how...ld-2014-12
http://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-...nhabitable

TL;DR : Your nuke numbers are unrealistic, unreasonable, and unsustainable, and need to be brought down by a whole lot

#19

Also u could spend money on drones


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

#20

Edward Yutan, for his actions at the recent summit, has been promoted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.




Users browsing this thread:
4 Guest(s)