So, I'm just curious why Nukes aren't more prevalent in 40k. The only appearance that I am aware of in the game proper is the IGs death-strike missal launcher, while in battle fleet gothic they seem to be absent completely. Seems like in a galaxy filled with titans and fleets of unstopable hunger the ability to vaporize dozens of miles at a time would be useful. Heck, in space combat it seems like it would be down right efficient (give the vastness of space and the size of some of the ships involved).
Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Skitarri vanguard would disagree with you ...
I believe the deathstrike missile launcher basically described in the fluff as a tactical nuclear weapon for the record.
Nukes are terrible in space and nukes rarely "vaporize" anything actually. Contrary to popular belief nukes are actually terrible wepaons for taking out hard targets as they do not focus their energy at an object, which is important when the big things always have void shields or some equivalent to them.
You don't really get anything better than relativistic projectiles fired at hypersonic speeds like macrocannons.
They're sometimes used to finish a target though, once any shields are gone and the missile can plow right into whatever it's aimed at. Or at least they were back in the original Space Hulk game. The fluff text described a couple of cruisers hanging back ready to pepper the space hulk with some incredible amounts of gigatons if the Blood Angels failed to secure it, probably more in a single missile than we have on Earth in total right now...
They're sometimes used to finish a target though, once any shields are gone and the missile can plow right into whatever it's aimed at. Or at least they were back in the original Space Hulk game. The fluff text described a couple of cruisers hanging back ready to pepper the space hulk with some incredible amounts of gigatons if the Blood Angels failed to secure it, probably more in a single missile than we have on Earth in total right now...
Torpedoes aren't normal nukes, they're HEAP nukes which penetrate the target first, then explode. When you talk about nukes you should specify if you mean your normal real life high explosive variety, neutron bombs, or something meant for armor penetration on a Battlefleet Gothic scale.
Nukes are used occasionally. But as mentioned, for many of the things the Imperium does nukes aren't great weapons. They're not effective in a vacuum. Space ships by the necessity of being in space are going to be well shielded against radiation, which is all a Nuke will do in space since there will be no shockwave(the primary damaging aspect of a nuclear weapon). And there is of course the fact that the Imperium has many weapons which are obscenely more powerful than nukes. The warheads on their torpedoes, lance battery strikes, etc... will all do way more damage than a nuclear warhead.
Nukes however as mentioned do get used within the setting. But they're truthfully viewed and categorized with conventional weaponry. They're not WMDs in 40k. They're just little pop guns. True 40k WMDs are things like Virus Bombs...
Virus bombs release a biological agent which destroys all life, turning it into sludge and gas. This mixture is highly flammable, and a single lance or bombardment cannon from an orbital ship will burn the whole planet's atmosphere like a massive fuel air bomb.
Cyclonic Torpedoes are even more powerful. Multiple torpedoes are launched, their warheads burrowing deep into the planet's crust and blowing it apart from the inside. The planet is turned into an asteroid field.
I imagine that any number of the weapons that are used constantly in the fluff leave large quantities of radiation behind, but I also expect that cleaning up radiation contamination would be quite routine for an advanced society 38k years in the future. Also, the dangers of radiation are somewhat overblown. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster ever, worse than multiple atomic bombs. Yet today the place is actually relatively thriving, a few mutations in the local wildlife, but certainly it's not an inhospitable wasteland. And certainly none of the damage from the radiation would be enough that the Imperium would care about. So your local human population has a higher rate of cancer? Cancer got cured 10s of thousands of years in the past and is easily treated for those who can afford it, and for those who can't the Imperium hardly cares.
The aftermaths of a nuclear holocaust would not look anything like the Fallout games. 200 years afterwards and you'd have to be told that a bunch of nukes got dropped. Life may seem fragile, but it's actually pretty dang resilient.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Of course there are nukes and there are nukes. Not all nukes make places uninhabitable for centuries. If it did I would be dead already having visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
I sometimes feel as though people just blow off nukes as "just nukes", at the same time I don't have the aptitude or the patients to sit down and compare Mt or Jules of energy released. Indeed, I don't even expect nuclear weapons of the 40k universe to be similar to the ones we have today. At the very least I am sure they have advanced to pure fusion weapons. Nor do I see any reason for nuclear weapons to be "undirected" surely there is a way to get a nuke to preform as a shaped charge and direct all of its energy into a target. And finally, we aren't just talking about space battles, wouldn't a nuke be a rather handy way to take down a titan?
KayTwo wrote: I sometimes feel as though people just blow off nukes as "just nukes", at the same time I don't have the aptitude or the patients to sit down and compare Mt or Jules of energy released. Indeed, I don't even expect nuclear weapons of the 40k universe to be similar to the ones we have today. At the very least I am sure they have advanced to pure fusion weapons. Nor do I see any reason for nuclear weapons to be "undirected" surely there is a way to get a nuke to preform as a shaped charge and direct all of its energy into a target. And finally, we aren't just talking about space battles, wouldn't a nuke be a rather handy way to take down a titan?
A nuke as a shaped charge? Not really possible. A nuclear bomb pretty much vaporizes anything close to the actual detonation. Shaped charges also don't work like how you're imagining them. What a shaped charge is isn't the force of the explosion being contained and directed at a point, a shaped charge is an explosion which has a inverted cone of metal(usually copper) strapped to the front. The undirected explosion, due to how the spherical energy wave interacts with the cone, causes the cone to melt and turn into a single jet of molten metal. Shaped charges are used to trigger nuclear bombs, specifically fusion bombs, but you're not going to create a massive shaped charge with the nuclear bomb itself. It's going to direct all it's energy outwards in a sphere, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. No bomb fuselage you can create is going to actually contain a nuclear blast at point blank range, which is what would be needed to direct the blast.
A nuke could take on a titan, but it wouldn't be ideal. Nukes aren't very focused, so unless the bomb was detonated right next to the titan it's shielding and physical armor would likely allow it to survive. Maybe it's not going to be unscathed, but not the best plan of attack. Given that the Imperium has direct energy weapons like turbo-lasers and plasma weaponry, those are more effective options. In terms of energy directed at a single point, they'd be more destructive than a nuclear bomb.
KayTwo wrote: I sometimes feel as though people just blow off nukes as "just nukes", at the same time I don't have the aptitude or the patients to sit down and compare Mt or Jules of energy released. Indeed, I don't even expect nuclear weapons of the 40k universe to be similar to the ones we have today. At the very least I am sure they have advanced to pure fusion weapons. Nor do I see any reason for nuclear weapons to be "undirected" surely there is a way to get a nuke to preform as a shaped charge and direct all of its energy into a target. And finally, we aren't just talking about space battles, wouldn't a nuke be a rather handy way to take down a titan?
If we assume big technological advances like that isn't it also logical there could be technological leaps that makes nukes inferior as a WMD? Don't see why nukes logically would be ultimate big weapon.
So maybe nukes just aren't efficient weapons for scale it would be used with better guns and bombs replacing nukes from use.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Who cares about centuries when wars in 40k can last way way longer then that.
besides wouldnt a virus bomb REALLY make an aera uninhabitable?
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Who cares about centuries when wars in 40k can last way way longer then that.
besides wouldnt a virus bomb REALLY make an aera uninhabitable?
Depends on how robust the virus is. Bombing an area with the AIDS virus for example would be pretty useless because it is pretty damn fragile. You just can't kill it once someone is actually infected. Once there is nothing left for the virus to process it will die off. It would need to go into hibernation or something. For long term area denial persistent chemical or radiological weapons are probably what you want.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Who cares about centuries when wars in 40k can last way way longer then that.
besides wouldnt a virus bomb REALLY make an aera uninhabitable?
..That's not how virus bombs work. Viral Bombs work by releasing a flesh-eating virus which rapidly decomposes all organic material on the planet's surface into methane gas, which is then ignited by a orbital bombardment, causing a global firestorm which incinerates the entire biosphere.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Who cares about centuries when wars in 40k can last way way longer then that.
besides wouldnt a virus bomb REALLY make an aera uninhabitable?
..That's not how virus bombs work. Viral Bombs work by releasing a flesh-eating virus which rapidly decomposes all organic material on the planet's surface into methane gas, which is then ignited by a orbital bombardment, causing a global firestorm which incinerates the entire biosphere.
that would literally make a planet uninhabitable just from the deletion of vegetation and oxygen including ozone as the entire planet catches on fire.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Who cares about centuries when wars in 40k can last way way longer then that.
besides wouldnt a virus bomb REALLY make an aera uninhabitable?
..That's not how virus bombs work. Viral Bombs work by releasing a flesh-eating virus which rapidly decomposes all organic material on the planet's surface into methane gas, which is then ignited by a orbital bombardment, causing a global firestorm which incinerates the entire biosphere.
that would literally make a planet uninhabitable just from the deletion of vegetation and oxygen including ozone as the entire planet catches on fire.
There's a reason why worlds subject to viral bombings are often classified as Dead Worlds afterwards, although some have somehow survived.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Of course there are nukes and there are nukes. Not all nukes make places uninhabitable for centuries. If it did I would be dead already having visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
The nukes used there, despite how horrible they were, were childs toys compared to the nukes we have today, let alone 40,000 years from now.
Nifty website for folks to use. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Give you a very clear idea of just how destructive these weapons have gotten since we last used them in anger.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Who cares about centuries when wars in 40k can last way way longer then that.
besides wouldnt a virus bomb REALLY make an aera uninhabitable?
..That's not how virus bombs work. Viral Bombs work by releasing a flesh-eating virus which rapidly decomposes all organic material on the planet's surface into methane gas, which is then ignited by a orbital bombardment, causing a global firestorm which incinerates the entire biosphere.
that would literally make a planet uninhabitable just from the deletion of vegetation and oxygen including ozone as the entire planet catches on fire.
There's a reason why worlds subject to viral bombings are often classified as Dead Worlds afterwards, although some have somehow survived.
Im lost as to what we are talking about at this point unless you were trying to quote Djones.
djones520 wrote: Probably because of the radiation. Why use nukes and make something uninhabitable for centuries, when you can just virus bomb a place, drop some cyclone torpedoes, and move right in?
Of course there are nukes and there are nukes. Not all nukes make places uninhabitable for centuries. If it did I would be dead already having visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
The nukes used there, despite how horrible they were, were childs toys compared to the nukes we have today, let alone 40,000 years from now.
Nifty website for folks to use. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Give you a very clear idea of just how destructive these weapons have gotten since we last used them in anger.
He means the radiation, not the blast power. Unless you drop neutron bombs or specifically detonate a nuke in the dirt to irradiate the ground it's not going to be much of a health hazard in a century, let alone several.
The sheer power of nukes is widely underestimated, I believe. It is important to remember that the central point of the fireball of a nuclear detonation reaches temperatures of 10^7 K, or 10 million degrees Fahrenheit. The (theoretical) highest melting point of any known material (a blend of hafnium, carbon, and nitrogen) would be 4400 K, or only 7460° Fahrenheit. The temperature within the fireball (assuming a 1 MT warhead detonated on the surface) would cause complete devastation within its 1.26km fireball radius, instantly vaporizing tanks, titans, and terminators with temperatures rivalling those of the interior of the sun.
Anything that could be damaged by a plasma weapon would completely disintegrate in a nuclear blast, as plasma is far, far relatively cooler than these temperatures.
The pressure wave would expand outwards from the fireball, turning living things into paste, crushing and flipping tanks, and rupturing armor. Fatalities within this pressure wave would be close to 100%, as even heavily built concrete/rebar buildings collapse under 20 psi of overpressure. This wave would hit anything within 2.18km of the blast, creating another ring of near-absolute lethality.
Anything within 2.5km of the blast would recieve a radiation dose of close to 500 rem, which can be expected to lead to death within a few hours to weeks.
Within 4.58 km of the blast, the pressure wave continues to spread, this time collapsing residential buildings, causing universal injuries, and widespread fatalities.
The majority of the thermal radiation released by the nuke would give lethal or severe third degree burns to anything within 10.7km of the detonation, essentially incapacitating an entire army. (useful against Orks/Tyranids!)
The sheer power of nuclear weapons and the relative ease of creating them should effectively instantly solve the Tyranid and Ork rok landing problem. Nuking large concentrations of Tyranids, in their landing zones, and hitting Ork roks with large warheads should be standard procedure. Even Necron tombs could easily be cleared with the force of cleansing nuclear fire. And yet, the Imperium doesn't do this. Let's run by the false reasons that they don't use nukes.
1. Civillians in the blast radius - ...Lol. This is the Imperium, remember?
2. Irreplaceable technology - Enemies don't just spontaneously appear in forge complexes. They have landing zones and emergence points. Plus, that forge complex you nuked isn't exactly unique. There are a million planets in the Imperium, and PLANETS ARE BIG. The galaxy is big. If that forge is unique in the galaxy, and small enough to be destroyed by a nuke, it wasn't doing anything useful anyway, and if the enemy holds it, it is already lost.
3. Lost Technology - As shown in Necropolis by Dan Abnett, regular Guardsmen recognize the signs of a nuclear blast. In Mechanicum, Mars is shown to have nuclear missile silos. In Armageddon source material, Armageddon is shown to also have (nuclear) missile silos. In The Beast Arises, nuclear weapons are heavily used in ship-to-ship combat. All these factors combine. Nuclear weapons are not lost, sacred archaeotech. They are just another kind of weapon.
The only true reason for nukes being used is simply this.
Nukes are boring narratively. Nobody wants to read "Warboss Thraka invaded a planet. His entire army was wiped out on their staging grounds by standard issue Imperial 200kt tactical nuclear missiles". Instead of Helsreach.
Atomics, especially as we know them IRL, are probably widely regarded by the denizens of 40K to be quite crude, unsofisticated weapons that have largely been replaced by more efficient, more effective weapons.
Also, the reason you don't see factions nuking everything is the same one you don't see them using their starships to blitz entire worlds into dust with far more powerful weapons than atomics during campaigns - namely they want to take the ground, not annihilate it.
Not always, of course. Sometimes they do indeed simply bomb the ever-living out of everything. But that's not exactly conducive to promoting and selling a tabletop wargame, or a story/narrative about infantry characters.
Anfauglir wrote: Atomics, especially as we know them IRL, are probably widely regarded by the denizens of 40K to be quite crude, unsofisticated weapons that have largely been replaced by more efficient, more effective weapons.
Also, the reason you don't see factions nuking everything is the same one you don't see them using their starships to blitz entire worlds into dust with far more powerful weapons than atomics during campaigns - namely they want to take the ground, not annihilate it.
Not always, of course. Sometimes they do indeed simply bomb the ever-living out of everything. But that's not exactly conducive to promoting and selling a tabletop wargame, or a story/narrative about infantry characters.
Bombarding someone's mountain into a flat plain is perfectly valid.
Its notna good game but it works in military sense just tongo fethnit and drop a bunch of tactical nukes on that stilibborn hill that's brrn holding up the guard advance for weeks.
jhe90 wrote: Bombarding someone's mountain into a flat plain is perfectly valid.
Its notna good game but it works in military sense just tongo fethnit and drop a bunch of tactical nukes on that stilibborn hill that's brrn holding up the guard advance for weeks.
I have no idea what you just said. So I'll go with... yes?
Anfauglir wrote: Atomics, especially as we know them IRL, are probably widely regarded by the denizens of 40K to be quite crude, unsofisticated weapons that have largely been replaced by more efficient, more effective weapons.
Leman Russes are modified tractors that run on wood/coal/oil. Crude means nothing to the Imperium.
Name a more efficient/effective (for the cost) weapon than a nuke, please.
jhe90 wrote: Bombarding someone's mountain into a flat plain is perfectly valid.
Its notna good game but it works in military sense just tongo fethnit and drop a bunch of tactical nukes on that stilibborn hill that's brrn holding up the guard advance for weeks.
I have no idea what you just said. So I'll go with... yes?
Phone being a
Not a good game for mini's n selling stuff.
But guard get bogged up on taking a hill that's holding up the main campaign.
After a while a few comisariat field promotions they decide to forget about overkill and drop a few tactical nukes and wipe it out and erase some of the hills height.
Anfauglir wrote: Atomics, especially as we know them IRL, are probably widely regarded by the denizens of 40K to be quite crude, unsofisticated weapons that have largely been replaced by more efficient, more effective weapons.
Leman Russes are modified tractors that run on wood/coal/oil. Crude means nothing to the Imperium.
Name a more efficient/effective (for the cost) weapon than a nuke, please.
You've missed the point. IRL the nuke is a WMD. In the 40K universe it's a firecracker in comparison to far larger, far more potent, far more devastating WMDs at the various factions desposal. In far greater numbers, to boot. Any battlefield objective sought that can be attained with the use of tactical nukes, in the 40K world can be achieved using far more efficient and/or more suitable weapons, is my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: But guard get bogged up on taking a hill that's holding up the main campaign.
After a while a few comisariat field promotions they decide to forget about overkill and drop a few tactical nukes and wipe it out and erase some of the hills height.
Sure. You can make any narrative work. But, if they've written off taking the hill with conventional artillery and infantry, and are willing to use atomics, they're no longer sending the troops in afterwards. They've decided that ground is not worth it tactically speaking and opt to destroy it. However, why use nukes when you have starships in orbit? Also, that's kinda the point I was making in the first place; they don't usually focus on the stories/narratives where utter destruction of ground objectives are the first order of the day, or even the last. Because they want heroic infantry slogging it through battles against enemy infantry. The moment you introduce nukes and up into the mix... it's endgame time (for that particualr battle).
Anfauglir wrote: Atomics, especially as we know them IRL, are probably widely regarded by the denizens of 40K to be quite crude, unsofisticated weapons that have largely been replaced by more efficient, more effective weapons.
Leman Russes are modified tractors that run on wood/coal/oil. Crude means nothing to the Imperium.
Name a more efficient/effective (for the cost) weapon than a nuke, please.
You've missed the point. IRL the nuke is a WMD. In the 40K universe it's a firecracker in comparison to far larger, far more potent, far more devastating WMDs at the various factions desposal. In far greater numbers, to boot. Any battlefield objective sought that can be attained with the use of tactical nukes, in the 40K world can be achieved using far more efficient and/or more suitable weapons, is my point.
Such as? The physics involved are clear. The most efficient weapon possible is an antimatter weapon (which 40k races don't have), followed by a pure fusion bomb (A NUKE.), and then hydrogen bombs, then nukes. There cannot be more powerful explosives than that. Plasma cannot generate the same forces, because of atomic reactions being unique in their damage output and effects.
Chemical weapons aren't particularly effective, due to rebreathers, and they mostly take the form of mutagenic acids in bullets. Bioweapons are only used for exterminatus (IIRC) because of their uncontrollable nature.
The sheer power of nukes is widely underestimated, I believe. It is important to remember that the central point of the fireball of a nuclear detonation reaches temperatures of 10^7 K, or 10 million degrees Fahrenheit. The (theoretical) highest melting point of any known material (a blend of hafnium, carbon, and nitrogen) would be 4400 K, or only 7460° Fahrenheit. The temperature within the fireball (assuming a 1 MT warhead detonated on the surface) would cause complete devastation within its 1.26km fireball radius, instantly vaporizing tanks, titans, and terminators with temperatures rivalling those of the interior of the sun.
Anything that could be damaged by a plasma weapon would completely disintegrate in a nuclear blast, as plasma is far, far relatively cooler than these temperatures.
The pressure wave would expand outwards from the fireball, turning living things into paste, crushing and flipping tanks, and rupturing armor. Fatalities within this pressure wave would be close to 100%, as even heavily built concrete/rebar buildings collapse under 20 psi of overpressure. This wave would hit anything within 2.18km of the blast, creating another ring of near-absolute lethality.
Anything within 2.5km of the blast would recieve a radiation dose of close to 500 rem, which can be expected to lead to death within a few hours to weeks.
Within 4.58 km of the blast, the pressure wave continues to spread, this time collapsing residential buildings, causing universal injuries, and widespread fatalities.
The majority of the thermal radiation released by the nuke would give lethal or severe third degree burns to anything within 10.7km of the detonation, essentially incapacitating an entire army. (useful against Orks/Tyranids!)
The sheer power of nuclear weapons and the relative ease of creating them should effectively instantly solve the Tyranid and Ork rok landing problem. Nuking large concentrations of Tyranids, in their landing zones, and hitting Ork roks with large warheads should be standard procedure. Even Necron tombs could easily be cleared with the force of cleansing nuclear fire. And yet, the Imperium doesn't do this. Let's run by the false reasons that they don't use nukes.
1. Civillians in the blast radius - ...Lol. This is the Imperium, remember?
2. Irreplaceable technology - Enemies don't just spontaneously appear in forge complexes. They have landing zones and emergence points. Plus, that forge complex you nuked isn't exactly unique. There are a million planets in the Imperium, and PLANETS ARE BIG. The galaxy is big. If that forge is unique in the galaxy, and small enough to be destroyed by a nuke, it wasn't doing anything useful anyway, and if the enemy holds it, it is already lost.
3. Lost Technology - As shown in Necropolis by Dan Abnett, regular Guardsmen recognize the signs of a nuclear blast. In Mechanicum, Mars is shown to have nuclear missile silos. In Armageddon source material, Armageddon is shown to also have (nuclear) missile silos. In The Beast Arises, nuclear weapons are heavily used in ship-to-ship combat. All these factors combine. Nuclear weapons are not lost, sacred archaeotech. They are just another kind of weapon.
The only true reason for nukes being used is simply this.
Nukes are boring narratively. Nobody wants to read "Warboss Thraka invaded a planet. His entire army was wiped out on their staging grounds by standard issue Imperial 200kt tactical nuclear missiles". Instead of Helsreach.
I honestly think this is it. Arguing that nukes are "basic technology" and then turning around and saying "how cool is the bolter?!" is just silly.
Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
There's just no fun in nuclear annihilation; its most likely reserved for serious strategic moments when its better to simply wipe out a planet and its potential to sustain life rather than let it fall into the hands of the enemy. Otherwise, engaging the enemy personally has much more honor attached to it and makes for a better narrative.
Jambles wrote: Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
Cyclonic torpedos are just giant nukes, actually. Some authors say they're plasma, but plasma does not work that way, so it can be safely ignored.
Jambles wrote: Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
Imperial Guard commanders require authorization from Segmentum Command to deploy nuclear weapons, even tactical nuclear weapons.
If nukes were "mere firecrackers" in the 40k universe, then there would be no need for such permission. They would be using nuclear devices as much, and in the same manner, as Earthshakers and battle cannon shells without a second thought.
The Imperium almost certainly does win many battles just by bombarding the enemy into total submission, but we don't hear those stories. We hear about the times when that wasn't an option, because that's more interesting than "10 Regiments of Imperial Guard and a battlefleet were deployed to Omicron-4 where a rebel army was dug in. Tactical analysis indicated nothing of value in the immediate vicinity of the rebel strongholds on the planet. The fleet dropped several atomic warheads and made a dozen strategic lance strikes. The guard regiments were deployed afterwards, easily dispatching the few survivors with minimal casualties"
Jambles wrote: Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
Cyclonic torpedos are just giant nukes, actually. Some authors say they're plasma, but plasma does not work that way, so it can be safely ignored.
TIL, I honestly thought they were gravity-based or something. That puts to rest the idea that nukes in 40k are anything like what we have now.
oldravenman3025 wrote:
Jambles wrote: Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
Imperial Guard commanders require authorization from Segmentum Command to deploy nuclear weapons, even tactical nuclear weapons.
If nukes were "mere firecrackers" in the 40k universe, then there would be no need for such permission. They would be using nuclear devices as much, and in the same manner, as Earthshakers and battle cannon shells without a second thought.
I thought that's what the Deathstrike was for?
Still, the Imperium clearly has some muchly bigly nukes, so my point is moot either way.
Jambles wrote: Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
Imperial Guard commanders require authorization from Segmentum Command to deploy nuclear weapons, even tactical nuclear weapons.
If nukes were "mere firecrackers" in the 40k universe, then there would be no need for such permission. They would be using nuclear devices as much, and in the same manner, as Earthshakers and battle cannon shells without a second thought.
Just because you need to ask for authorization doesn't mean that something is rare. I'm sure the list of things that Imperial forces have to ask permission to use is ridiculously long.
Jambles wrote: Nukes as we know them seem almost trivial when you can have ships in space carrying projectile weapons the size of small cities. Even relatively common things in the 40k universe like cyclonic torpedoes make our wildest dreams of nuclear weapons look like fire crackers.
Cyclonic torpedos are just giant nukes, actually. Some authors say they're plasma, but plasma does not work that way, so it can be safely ignored.
TIL, I honestly thought they were gravity-based or something. That puts to rest the idea that nukes in 40k are anything like what we have now.
Nuclear weapons scale nearly infinitely. I shall introduce you, now, to one of the most hilariously overkill projects of the Cold War. If we can theorize it, and make schematics, the Imperium can certainly build it. Cyclonic Torpedos are most likely in the 10-50gt range, enough to destroy a planet by hitting fault lines.
Yes, the Imperium probably has those, as well as little 10kt nukes used by PDFs, or 50mt Tsar Bomba grade nukes stored away in case of Tyranid invasion on hive worlds.
Cyclonic Torpedoes aren't gigaton range, they're far more powerful. The energy required to blow up a planet and turn it into a field of asteroids is well past the range of gigatons. Rather you're in the yotta joule/ton range of energy.
Wyzilla wrote: Cyclonic Torpedoes aren't gigaton range, they're far more powerful. The energy required to blow up a planet and turn it into a field of asteroids is well past the range of gigatons. Rather you're in the yotta joule/ton range of energy.
True, they will be beyond gigaton range. But remember that it does take multiple cyclonic torpedoes to blow up a planet. It's not instantaneous either. You'd be looking at a dozen or so for your typical planet, and it would likely take a while for the planet to fully break apart. You'd probably have all the planet chunks staying together for a while due to their gravity. It would probably take a few centuries for an actual asteroid belt to fully form and stabilize. Not to mention if the planet has a molten core, that's going to take a long time to cool down and solidify. Vacuum is piss poor at transferring heat, its why thermos's work so well.
It seems as though the bulk of arguments against nuclear weapons in the 40k verse come in 2 flavors; either "nukes aren't grimdark enough" and "nukes are too grimdark." That is to say, I am hearing a lot of "it's so far in the future that certainly mankind has developed technology to the point that the destructive force of a nuke is irrelevant." As well as a lot of folks going "there is no way that the IoM would use nukes, they leave no surviving infrastructure and thus remove any reason to fight at all"
For the first argument, guardsmen use a bayonet not to different from what troops use today, the heavy stubber is literally a M2 Browning, and the Bolter; failed 1960 technology. I had heard some talk about depleted uranium rounds. These are not nuclear weapons, depleted uranium is extremely dense and therefore has excellent penetration, the A-10 warthog uses depleted uranium rounds. Now those are examples of lowtech weapons in the setting, as for damage potential; nuclear weapons create temperatures higher than the center of a star, and I don't think many IoM ships can fly through stars.
The second argument, that nukes are too easy, I think it is pretty clear that the IoM cares nothing for infrastructure or the people of it's planets. And thus wouldn't hesitate to use nukes if it would save them the effort of redirecting troops who are suppose to go else where.
Now that being said, I think the real reason that you don't see a lot of nukes in the 40k verse narrative, nukes are just to easy. Especially when the flag ship army is immune to radiation.
KayTwo wrote: It seems as though the bulk of arguments against nuclear weapons in the 40k verse come in 2 flavors; either "nukes aren't grimdark enough" and "nukes are too grimdark." That is to say, I am hearing a lot of "it's so far in the future that certainly mankind has developed technology to the point that the destructive force of a nuke is irrelevant." As well as a lot of folks going "there is no way that the IoM would use nukes, they leave no surviving infrastructure and thus remove any reason to fight at all"
For the first argument, guardsmen use a bayonet not to different from what troops use today, the heavy stubber is literally a M2 Browning, and the Bolter; failed 1960 technology. I had heard some talk about depleted uranium rounds. These are not nuclear weapons, depleted uranium is extremely dense and therefore has excellent penetration, the A-10 warthog uses depleted uranium rounds. Now those are examples of lowtech weapons in the setting, as for damage potential; nuclear weapons create temperatures higher than the center of a star, and I don't think many IoM ships can fly through stars.
The second argument, that nukes are too easy, I think it is pretty clear that the IoM cares nothing for infrastructure or the people of it's planets. And thus wouldn't hesitate to use nukes if it would save them the effort of redirecting troops who are suppose to go else where.
Now that being said, I think the real reason that you don't see a lot of nukes in the 40k verse narrative, nukes are just to easy. Especially when the flag ship army is immune to radiation.
Space Marines aren't just the ones immune to radiation poisoning, but also Tyranids, Necrons (derp), shielded admech infantry, Daemons, and probably Orks.
So it's just the sun-heat fireball and 10.7km pressure wave that'll pulp anything organic to worry about. For a 1MT nuke, which is pretty piddly compared to what the IoM is probably capable of manufacturing.
Beyond that which is destructive enough to justify their use anyway, I wonder how 'immune' these dudes actually are to radiation. When people mention 'radiation poisoning', what they usually mean is consistent moderate-level background radiation. Not the searing ultra-hard radiation that's pumped out by a nuclear reaction. An easy comparison is saying 'Space Marines are immune to being punched in the face' which is largely true, and then punching one in the face with a Titan.
Saying that, I do get the impression that background radiation isn't really a problem in the year 40k. If I understand it right (and I hope I do), its main issue is that it messes up your DNA such that when it replicates it causes cancers and other horrible things. If you have the know-how to manipulate DNA, you can control for that. Either through some sort of gene-editing, or perhaps a biological mechanism for detecting damaged cells (looking at Tyranids and Orks here).
Ynneadwraith wrote: So it's just the sun-heat fireball and 10.7km pressure wave that'll pulp anything organic to worry about. For a 1MT nuke, which is pretty piddly compared to what the IoM is probably capable of manufacturing.
Beyond that which is destructive enough to justify their use anyway, I wonder how 'immune' these dudes actually are to radiation. When people mention 'radiation poisoning', what they usually mean is consistent moderate-level background radiation. Not the searing ultra-hard radiation that's pumped out by a nuclear reaction. An easy comparison is saying 'Space Marines are immune to being punched in the face' which is largely true, and then punching on in the face with a Titan.
Well a naked marine can survive exposure to a star at relatively (astronomically speaking) close distance for about thirty minutes IIRC and 'only' need a total skin graft.
Ynneadwraith wrote: So it's just the sun-heat fireball and 10.7km pressure wave that'll pulp anything organic to worry about. For a 1MT nuke, which is pretty piddly compared to what the IoM is probably capable of manufacturing.
Beyond that which is destructive enough to justify their use anyway, I wonder how 'immune' these dudes actually are to radiation. When people mention 'radiation poisoning', what they usually mean is consistent moderate-level background radiation. Not the searing ultra-hard radiation that's pumped out by a nuclear reaction. An easy comparison is saying 'Space Marines are immune to being punched in the face' which is largely true, and then punching on in the face with a Titan.
Well a naked marine can survive exposure to a star at relatively (astronomically speaking) close distance for about thirty minutes IIRC and 'only' need a total skin graft.
Hmm, interesting. We can use that as a benchmark for Marine radiation resistance I suppose. Does it actually say how close it was, and roughly what sort of star? From that we can work out how much radiation they absorbed and survived. We can then compare that to the radiation levels present at different ranges of a nuclear blast.
The sheer power of nukes is widely underestimated, I believe. It is important to remember that the central point of the fireball of a nuclear detonation reaches temperatures of 10^7 K, or 10 million degrees Fahrenheit. The (theoretical) highest melting point of any known material (a blend of hafnium, carbon, and nitrogen) would be 4400 K, or only 7460° Fahrenheit. The temperature within the fireball (assuming a 1 MT warhead detonated on the surface) would cause complete devastation within its 1.26km fireball radius, instantly vaporizing tanks, titans, and terminators with temperatures rivalling those of the interior of the sun.
Anything that could be damaged by a plasma weapon would completely disintegrate in a nuclear blast, as plasma is far, far relatively cooler than these temperatures.
The pressure wave would expand outwards from the fireball, turning living things into paste, crushing and flipping tanks, and rupturing armor. Fatalities within this pressure wave would be close to 100%, as even heavily built concrete/rebar buildings collapse under 20 psi of overpressure. This wave would hit anything within 2.18km of the blast, creating another ring of near-absolute lethality.
Anything within 2.5km of the blast would recieve a radiation dose of close to 500 rem, which can be expected to lead to death within a few hours to weeks.
Within 4.58 km of the blast, the pressure wave continues to spread, this time collapsing residential buildings, causing universal injuries, and widespread fatalities.
The majority of the thermal radiation released by the nuke would give lethal or severe third degree burns to anything within 10.7km of the detonation, essentially incapacitating an entire army. (useful against Orks/Tyranids!)
The sheer power of nuclear weapons and the relative ease of creating them should effectively instantly solve the Tyranid and Ork rok landing problem. Nuking large concentrations of Tyranids, in their landing zones, and hitting Ork roks with large warheads should be standard procedure. Even Necron tombs could easily be cleared with the force of cleansing nuclear fire. And yet, the Imperium doesn't do this. Let's run by the false reasons that they don't use nukes.
1. Civillians in the blast radius - ...Lol. This is the Imperium, remember?
2. Irreplaceable technology - Enemies don't just spontaneously appear in forge complexes. They have landing zones and emergence points. Plus, that forge complex you nuked isn't exactly unique. There are a million planets in the Imperium, and PLANETS ARE BIG. The galaxy is big. If that forge is unique in the galaxy, and small enough to be destroyed by a nuke, it wasn't doing anything useful anyway, and if the enemy holds it, it is already lost.
3. Lost Technology - As shown in Necropolis by Dan Abnett, regular Guardsmen recognize the signs of a nuclear blast. In Mechanicum, Mars is shown to have nuclear missile silos. In Armageddon source material, Armageddon is shown to also have (nuclear) missile silos. In The Beast Arises, nuclear weapons are heavily used in ship-to-ship combat. All these factors combine. Nuclear weapons are not lost, sacred archaeotech. They are just another kind of weapon.
The only true reason for nukes being used is simply this.
Nukes are boring narratively. Nobody wants to read "Warboss Thraka invaded a planet. His entire army was wiped out on their staging grounds by standard issue Imperial 200kt tactical nuclear missiles". Instead of Helsreach.
The Imperium is afraid to use their nuclear arsenal because they know the Orks can retaliate with mutually assured destruction. Also, using WMDs on Orks that are still preparing for an invasion is banned by the Ullanor Conventions.
But yeah you are very much right, the Imperium has nuclear weapons in large numbers but like all the other WMDs the Imperium has, they are never used because it'd be boring. And maybe because sacrificing a million or so guardsmen is simply cheaper than using nukes.
I don't think mutually assured destruction holds any water at all in total war situations, let alone ones where the culture is so consumed with religious fervour.
Oddly, I do think that you might have hit the nail on the head with Orks though. They probably don't use nukes because it'd be boring. Much more fun to krump 'eads. Same for the Dark Eldar too I expect.
Marines are definitely resistant to radiation. At least enough to where, provided the radiation isn't strong enough to actually kill them, they'll survive and not suffer any permanent damage. IE: They're not going to get cancer.
Naturally high enough radiation will kill them simply by cooking their body, but they can survive ambient radiation exposure that would normally kill a human.
Grey Templar wrote: Marines are definitely resistant to radiation. At least enough to where, provided the radiation isn't strong enough to actually kill them, they'll survive and not suffer any permanent damage. IE: They're not going to get cancer.
Naturally high enough radiation will kill them simply by cooking their body, but they can survive ambient radiation exposure that would normally kill a human.
IIRC radiation isnt that big of an issue for the imperium
i recall some story about some chick that get hit with a heavy dose of cosmic radiation while in a ship. she takes some meds and is fine.
Grey Templar wrote: Marines are definitely resistant to radiation. At least enough to where, provided the radiation isn't strong enough to actually kill them, they'll survive and not suffer any permanent damage. IE: They're not going to get cancer.
Naturally high enough radiation will kill them simply by cooking their body, but they can survive ambient radiation exposure that would normally kill a human.
IIRC radiation isnt that big of an issue for the imperium
i recall some story about some chick that get hit with a heavy dose of cosmic radiation while in a ship. she takes some meds and is fine.
SM for sure are radiation resistant.
So the Imperium figured out how to produce Rad-X and Rad-away? Good to know!
Grey Templar wrote: Marines are definitely resistant to radiation. At least enough to where, provided the radiation isn't strong enough to actually kill them, they'll survive and not suffer any permanent damage. IE: They're not going to get cancer.
Naturally high enough radiation will kill them simply by cooking their body, but they can survive ambient radiation exposure that would normally kill a human.
IIRC radiation isnt that big of an issue for the imperium
i recall some story about some chick that get hit with a heavy dose of cosmic radiation while in a ship. she takes some meds and is fine.
SM for sure are radiation resistant.
So the Imperium figured out how to produce Rad-X and Rad-away? Good to know!
i wish i remembered where i read that. it might of been from that ffgrpg.
Given that we have some basic radiation treatments today, it's hardly surprising that they'd have some amazing stuff in the future. Heck, they have anti-aging therapy in the Imperium that lets people live for ~400-500 years, and it's reasonably common enough to where even middle class individuals can have basic Juvnat treatments.
So, long term radiation exposure isn't an issue anymore. But, that still leaves the actual explosion. Certainly, the heat of a star is sufficient as a weapon in the 41 millennium.
Something to consider is such rapid destruction of matter weakens the veil between the Materium and the Empyrean, leading to high incidence of mutation of those in the immediate area of the explosion.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, it's not an issue for those who can afford, or have access to, the treatments. Also assuming that you receive said treatment quickly.
Or have the extra organs and toughness to survive until the treatment is available - which probably is a good part of a space marine's radiation resistance. He doesn't shrug it off but he can survive and function longer than a normal man, giving him a better chance of reaching a faciliy with said treatments before dying. Probably no further off than the battlebarge or strike cruiser that deployed him.
Grey Templar wrote: Marines are definitely resistant to radiation. At least enough to where, provided the radiation isn't strong enough to actually kill them, they'll survive and not suffer any permanent damage. IE: They're not going to get cancer.
Naturally high enough radiation will kill them simply by cooking their body, but they can survive ambient radiation exposure that would normally kill a human.
IIRC radiation isnt that big of an issue for the imperium
i recall some story about some chick that get hit with a heavy dose of cosmic radiation while in a ship. she takes some meds and is fine.
Nuclear Shaped Charges are theoretical. But in 40k, it could be do able.
Nukes do exist in 40k. They could easily be just hidden away in some storage bunker. Galaxy is big enough that some nuclear weapons are bound to be somewhere...
Well, a lot of the time a ship in orbit firing weapons batteries or lances (say nothing of bombardment cannons) will lay just as much waste on the surface as tactical nukes.
Anfauglir wrote: Atomics, especially as we know them IRL, are probably widely regarded by the denizens of 40K to be quite crude, unsofisticated weapons that have largely been replaced by more efficient, more effective weapons.
Leman Russes are modified tractors that run on wood/coal/oil. Crude means nothing to the Imperium.
Name a more efficient/effective (for the cost) weapon than a nuke, please.
You've missed the point. IRL the nuke is a WMD. In the 40K universe it's a firecracker in comparison to far larger, far more potent, far more devastating WMDs at the various factions desposal. In far greater numbers, to boot. Any battlefield objective sought that can be attained with the use of tactical nukes, in the 40K world can be achieved using far more efficient and/or more suitable weapons, is my point.
Such as? The physics involved are clear. The most efficient weapon possible is an antimatter weapon (which 40k races don't have), followed by a pure fusion bomb (A NUKE.), and then hydrogen bombs, then nukes. There cannot be more powerful explosives than that. Plasma cannot generate the same forces, because of atomic reactions being unique in their damage output and effects.
Chemical weapons aren't particularly effective, due to rebreathers, and they mostly take the form of mutagenic acids in bullets. Bioweapons are only used for exterminatus (IIRC) because of their uncontrollable nature.
Conversion Beamers are antimatter-based weapons. The Necrons make use of several antimatter-based weapons as well - the Death Sphere is explicitly a WMD antimatter bomb and Particle weapons utilise antimatter.
On top of that, there are other, more esoteric means of attack available to the other races that seem to have a comparable level of effectiveness. The Eldar make use of a strange but extremely powerful substance called Darklight, for example, which is some kind of strange science-fiction magic Dark Matter that acts nothing like actual Dark Matter, with the Dark Eldar frequently using it in smaller weapons like Void Mines but we're also told about the Akiliamor, planet-killer bombs. The Orks have absurdly powerful gravity manipulation technology, as we saw during the War of the Beast. There's also Vortex weaponry to consider, and it's equivalent among the Eldar, scaling up to things like the Blackstone Fortresses.
Basically, using conventional physics ignores a lot of the more powerful technology in-setting which is effectively either literal magic or clarketech. The upper-tier races like the Necrons and Dark Eldar regularly use weapons that operate on principles we today would recognise as functionally impossible.
Engine of War wrote: Nuclear Shaped Charges are theoretical. But in 40k, it could be do able.
Nukes do exist in 40k. They could easily be just hidden away in some storage bunker. Galaxy is big enough that some nuclear weapons are bound to be somewhere...
That's not a shaped charge, that's a slow-release burn meant to be used for space travel. Detonating a full fusion warhead in one blast and trying to direct the explosion into a beam should see the shell just explode like a shrapnel grenade.
Engine of War wrote: Nuclear Shaped Charges are theoretical. But in 40k, it could be do able.
Nukes do exist in 40k. They could easily be just hidden away in some storage bunker. Galaxy is big enough that some nuclear weapons are bound to be somewhere...
That's not a shaped charge, that's a slow-release burn meant to be used for space travel. Detonating a full fusion warhead in one blast and trying to direct the explosion into a beam should see the shell just explode like a shrapnel grenade.
Surely it is a shaped charge. I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think they use a tungsten carbide as a propellant for propulsion...
Engine of War wrote: Nuclear Shaped Charges are theoretical. But in 40k, it could be do able.
Nukes do exist in 40k. They could easily be just hidden away in some storage bunker. Galaxy is big enough that some nuclear weapons are bound to be somewhere...
That's not a shaped charge, that's a slow-release burn meant to be used for space travel. Detonating a full fusion warhead in one blast and trying to direct the explosion into a beam should see the shell just explode like a shrapnel grenade.
Surely it is a shaped charge. I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think they use a tungsten carbide as a propellant for propulsion...
Google image search calls it a shaped charge, and I don't think you could do a slow burn like you were saying, unless you referring to project Orion. In our time, the only way you get nuclear propulsion is "hot rock makes steam"
Though, the picture does very closely resemble a black and white picture on the Wikipedia project Orion page for a "pulse unit"
Using Nukes as a means of propelling a spaceship has been around as a concept for quite a while. It's doable, but it's not really feasible since nukes are expensive and carrying enough to travel from point A to B is a problem. Plus I doubt you'd be able to convince many people to ride in a space ship that has nuclear bombs detonating in uncomfortably close proximity.
Engine of War wrote: Nuclear Shaped Charges are theoretical. But in 40k, it could be do able.
Nukes do exist in 40k. They could easily be just hidden away in some storage bunker. Galaxy is big enough that some nuclear weapons are bound to be somewhere...
That's not a shaped charge, that's a slow-release burn meant to be used for space travel. Detonating a full fusion warhead in one blast and trying to direct the explosion into a beam should see the shell just explode like a shrapnel grenade.
Surely it is a shaped charge. I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think they use a tungsten carbide as a propellant for propulsion...
That's the Projection Orion pulse unit. It's not a weapon but a method of propulsion for space travel. As a weapon it would likely destroy itself (indeed even as a propulsion unit it would likely destroy itself), and reloading would be an extremely complex process. Meanwhile you can just get a titan blastgun and fire what is basically a miniature solar flare at the enemy.
(Imperial Plasma is described as being in excess of two million degrees Fahrenheit and has enough energy in pistol form that missed shots cause the enemy to combust from proximity)
Wyzilla wrote: That's the Projection Orion pulse unit. It's not a weapon but a method of propulsion for space travel. As a weapon it would likely destroy itself (indeed even as a propulsion unit it would likely destroy itself), and reloading would be an extremely complex process. Meanwhile you can just get a titan blastgun and fire what is basically a miniature solar flare at the enemy.
(Imperial Plasma is described as being in excess of two million degrees Fahrenheit and has enough energy in pistol form that missed shots cause the enemy to combust from proximity)
You can make a shaped charge of a kind for nuclear weapons using the same principle as neutron bombs.
In conventional nuclear bombs you encase them in lead or another high density metal to contain the initial charge slightly so it can set off the reaction in the main fission material. However, in a neutron bomb they use casing material that's transparent to neutron radiation. This reduces the ultimate yield of the bomb as the neutron radiation causes fission in the casing material, adding to the yield. However, it does blanket the area in tons of neutron radiation which is nasty nasty stuff.
So, to build a sort of shaped charge you could build the majority of the casing out of lead, but the nose of it out of material that's transparent to neutrons. What you'll get there is a medium yield nuclear bomb that also emits a directed beam on neutron radiation.
So reading about this Project Orion, looks like the idea is that these devices would be detonated at the rear of a spacecraft, aimed at the space craft's large 'pusher plate'. The tungsten propellant would be projected as a jet to strike and impart its momentum to the plate, which would in turn push the spacecraft along (with shock absorbers to cushion the considerable blow). Definately not a slow burning fuel.
The little pulse unit shaped charges were only meant to be relatively small, and not form a projectile that was optimised for penetrating the spacecrafts pusher plate (obviously). I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that this could be up scaled and redesigned to a very potent weapon of war.
Considering the vast difference in explosive velocity between plastic explosives (used in current day shaped charge warheads) and todays nuclear weapons, I think you might end up with one hell of an armour (or is that planet?) defeating device if you make it big enough.
The Rogue Trader RPG says they are very rare and presumably the knowledge to make them is scarce.
Stop analyzing in terms of cost/benefit analysis, like "why wouldn't they know how to make nukes and use them?" The Imperium does not have technology; it has magic items empowered by God. They don't know anything. If there are no instructions for making an Omnissiah's Holy Burning Flame, or whatever, in the Tome of the Machine-God's Wrath and Means of Must Justly Smiting Those Who Would Defy Him, you can't make it, and in fact it would be a sin to try to do so, basically consorting with dark forces.
That's a little too extreme of an interpretation of the Imperium's relationship with technology. Research and development does exist, legally. It just has to go through massive hoops and get vetted thoroughly before it gets approved. And the person doing it has to be approved to do it.
That's of course assuming the technology involved is sacred. You could invent a slightly superior configuration of a personal vox communicator by using a more powerful transmitter from a LRBT's vox caster. That would be kosher, since you didn't actually alter any of the pieces. Just used individual sacred pieces of technology to make another sacred piece of technology.
People also may not know all the science behind what they're using, but that's not always necessary for something to work. I don't know jack squat about computer programming, most people don't. Yet I can build my own computer out of parts that I bought, install the OS myself, etc...
It wouldn't be heretical for an individual in the 41st millennium to build his own personal cogitator, assuming he used all sanctioned parts. Say a dude was building a cogitator out of parts he was purchasing from the local supplier(who buys from the local forge world). But while the standard configuration of the cogitator he is building is the X97B, he decides to get a more powerful CPU from the X3Y Cogitator. He knows that the CPU interface for both cogitator models is the same. He has no idea what CPU means, but he knows what it does and that it determines the power of the machine.
Grey Templar wrote: That's of course assuming the technology involved is sacred. You could invent a slightly superior configuration of a personal vox communicator by using a more powerful transmitter from a LRBT's vox caster. That would be kosher, since you didn't actually alter any of the pieces. Just used individual sacred pieces of technology to make another sacred piece of technology.
Considering it took centuries to approve sticking Lascannons on a Predator it's fair to say that nothing is kosher.
Robin5t wrote: Unless you're Belisarius Cawl - in which case you can do whatever you want.
i hope he gets put in his place about that, although i doubt it. There's a reason most people don't meddle with things in the 40k galaxy. Sh*t tends to go sideways in a rather big way.
It doesn't quite feel like 40k if it doesn't personally...
KayTwo wrote: I sometimes feel as though people just blow off nukes as "just nukes", at the same time I don't have the aptitude or the patients to sit down and compare Mt or Jules of energy released. Indeed, I don't even expect nuclear weapons of the 40k universe to be similar to the ones we have today. At the very least I am sure they have advanced to pure fusion weapons. Nor do I see any reason for nuclear weapons to be "undirected" surely there is a way to get a nuke to preform as a shaped charge and direct all of its energy into a target. And finally, we aren't just talking about space battles, wouldn't a nuke be a rather handy way to take down a titan?
A nuke as a shaped charge? Not really possible. A nuclear bomb pretty much vaporizes anything close to the actual detonation. Shaped charges also don't work like how you're imagining them. What a shaped charge is isn't the force of the explosion being contained and directed at a point, a shaped charge is an explosion which has a inverted cone of metal(usually copper) strapped to the front. The undirected explosion, due to how the spherical energy wave interacts with the cone, causes the cone to melt and turn into a single jet of molten metal. Shaped charges are used to trigger nuclear bombs, specifically fusion bombs, but you're not going to create a massive shaped charge with the nuclear bomb itself. It's going to direct all it's energy outwards in a sphere, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. No bomb fuselage you can create is going to actually contain a nuclear blast at point blank range, which is what would be needed to direct the blast.
A nuke could take on a titan, but it wouldn't be ideal. Nukes aren't very focused, so unless the bomb was detonated right next to the titan it's shielding and physical armor would likely allow it to survive. Maybe it's not going to be unscathed, but not the best plan of attack. Given that the Imperium has direct energy weapons like turbo-lasers and plasma weaponry, those are more effective options. In terms of energy directed at a single point, they'd be more destructive than a nuclear bomb.
You could totally make a shaped charge that could direct a nuclear blast - but why do that when for much less resources you could make a penetrator for the device and detonate inside the target - that would destroy pretty much anything.
Verviedi is correct. Nukes never go out of style, but they make for terrible narratives. Remember that most things in 40K can be killed by heavy stubbers. They have zero chance vs WMDs. Even a thermobaric device would do catastrophic damage to a 40K battlefield, but again, bad narrative.
Grey Templar wrote: That's a little too extreme of an interpretation of the Imperium's relationship with technology. Research and development does exist, legally. It just has to go through massive hoops and get vetted thoroughly before it gets approved. And the person doing it has to be approved to do it.
That's of course assuming the technology involved is sacred. You could invent a slightly superior configuration of a personal vox communicator by using a more powerful transmitter from a LRBT's vox caster. That would be kosher, since you didn't actually alter any of the pieces. Just used individual sacred pieces of technology to make another sacred piece of technology.
All technology is sacred. "Research and development" are the equivalent of making a new exegesis of Scripture or writing a new prayer.
You can do that, but the prayer better be proper. .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Robin5t wrote: Unless you're Belisarius Cawl - in which case you can do whatever you want.
Cawl is an arch-heretic. That he is in a position of great power is another example of Imperial hypocrisy and lying, which is a general theme in the setting.
Martel732 wrote: Verviedi is correct. Nukes never go out of style, but they make for terrible narratives. Remember that most things in 40K can be killed by heavy stubbers. They have zero chance vs WMDs. Even a thermobaric device would do catastrophic damage to a 40K battlefield, but again, bad narrative.
One could use nukes as a plot device.
Omicron-9, a vital forge world, is under siege by a Tyranid fleet. Tactical assessment has deemed that the planet cannot be held. Time is needed to evacuate the vital materials and machinery from the main forge hive. Strategic nuclear weapons, deployed via missiles as well as ordinatus batteries deployed around the hive, are used to periodically wipe out the advancing waves of tyranids 100 km away from the outer defenses, along with longer range detonations to wipe out tyranid staging areas and breeding pits. Any that survive are easily held back by the forces in the surrounding defense works. The Tyranids quickly evolved radiation resistance, but nothing could protect from the sheer force of nuclear detonation. The vital materials were evacuated, along with most ground forces.
That could at least potentially make for a good narrative.
Martel732 wrote: Verviedi is correct. Nukes never go out of style, but they make for terrible narratives. Remember that most things in 40K can be killed by heavy stubbers. They have zero chance vs WMDs. Even a thermobaric device would do catastrophic damage to a 40K battlefield, but again, bad narrative.
One could use nukes as a plot device.
Omicron-9, a vital forge world, is under siege by a Tyranid fleet. Tactical assessment has deemed that the planet cannot be held. Time is needed to evacuate the vital materials and machinery from the main forge hive. Strategic nuclear weapons, deployed via missiles as well as ordinatus batteries deployed around the hive, are used to periodically wipe out the advancing waves of tyranids 100 km away from the outer defenses, along with longer range detonations to wipe out tyranid staging areas and breeding pits. Any that survive are easily held back by the forces in the surrounding defense works. The Tyranids quickly evolved radiation resistance, but nothing could protect from the sheer force of nuclear detonation. The vital materials were evacuated, along with most ground forces.
That could at least potentially make for a good narrative.
Except you wasted the Emperor's expensive and sacred nukes when you could have thrown a few million Guardsmen at it for the same result...
The Imperium has incredibly powerful weapons and artifacts (like deathstrike missiles) that could solve pretty much every problem. Yet the Imperium virtually never deploys such weapons, because they are sacred and valuable. Human life on the other hand, is incredibly cheap. Therefore the Imperium solves with infantry what more sane forces would solve with missiles. And because the story of how an army of heroic martyrs sacrificed themselves to buy some time against the unending Tyranid horde is way more inspirational and dramatic than holding the Tyranids at bay for a while with missiles. The Imperium cares about such things.
I would like to point out that in our world SSBN carries up to 24 Trident 2 missiles, and each Trident 2 carries up to 12 warheads with in its MIRV, usually a W-88. Each W-88 has a yield of about 475 kilotons. A kiloton has an equivalent energy value of 4.184 terajoules. So, 4.184 times 475 times 12 times 24 is 572,371 terajoules of energy carried by one submarine. Now, I don't have the science background to prove this, much less explain it, but when I was in I was taught that one SSBN had enough firepower to glass the planet over twice. I don't think we should under estimate what ever new developments there are to nuclear weapons in the future,cause they are plenty strong already.
Well, sounds like your teacher exaggerated a teeny tiny bit. If a W-88 was dropped in the middle of Brooklyn it would flatten most of it, and whoever doesn't get flattened would be getting a major instant tan (by which I mean third degree burns if directly exposed to the flash). Lower Manhattan would get a bit toasty too, but anything north of the Empire State Building would be more or less fine, as would Queens. Relatively speaking. So one of these isn't even enough to level NYC, 24 of them certainly can't glass the planet. 24 of them could level Rhode Island, maybe.
Though that's still more than enough to vaporize an entire 40k board.
KayTwo wrote: I would like to point out that in our world SSBN carries up to 24 Trident 2 missiles, and each Trident 2 carries up to 12 warheads with in its MIRV, usually a W-88. Each W-88 has a yield of about 475 kilotons. A kiloton has an equivalent energy value of 4.184 terajoules. So, 4.184 times 475 times 12 times 24 is 572,371 terajoules of energy carried by one submarine. Now, I don't have the science background to prove this, much less explain it, but when I was in I was taught that one SSBN had enough firepower to glass the planet over twice. I don't think we should under estimate what ever new developments there are to nuclear weapons in the future,cause they are plenty strong already.
Yeah that's nonsense. For comparison the K/T event asteroid that struck Chicxulub released 418,400,000,000 terajoules of energy, and it failed to envelop the entire planet. A nuke doesn't even have the power to "glass" land in the first place.
Yeah. While I don't think anybody knows exactly how many nukes there are currently, I don't think there have ever been enough nukes to actually destroy Earth. Destroy society as we know it? Sure. Literally sterilize the planet and all of humanity? Heck no.
You'd probably need to find a lot of uranium and plutonium deposits in space to get enough material to destroy an Earth sized planet with nukes.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. While I don't think anybody knows exactly how many nukes there are currently, I don't think there have ever been enough nukes to actually destroy Earth. Destroy society as we know it? Sure. Literally sterilize the planet and all of humanity? Heck no.
You'd probably need to find a lot of uranium and plutonium deposits in space to get enough material to destroy an Earth sized planet with nukes.
IIRC from some calculations I read you need to start pumping out hundreds of petatons to start doing permanent damage to a planet. Yottatons or more of TNT to actually destroy it.
A 1 megaton bomb has around 4 x 10^15 joules of energy.
The volcanic blast at Tambora in 1815 released an estimated 8.4 x 10^20 joules of energy - an amount greater than the current estimated world nuclear stockpile.
It's been estimated that to reduce the earth to rubble it would require 10^31 joules of energy. An antimatter mass about the size of Mt. Everest would do the trick!
A 1 megaton bomb has around 4 x 10^15 joules of energy.
The volcanic blast at Tambora in 1815 released an estimated 8.4 x 10^20 joules of energy - an amount greater than the current estimated world nuclear stockpile.
It's been estimated that to reduce the earth to rubble it would require 10^31 joules of energy. An antimatter mass about the size of Mt. Everest would do the trick!
The earth is large, folks!
Destroying everything on the surface would be difficult
Turning the surface to moltant slag would be more difficult
Getting the earth to break up into pieces and blast apart would require overcoming the gravity well. A simply massive amount of energy.
unless you were trying to quote Djones.
out of everything. But that's not exactly conducive to promoting and selling a tabletop wargame, or a story/narrative about infantry characters. 
