Nuclear weapons in 40K.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KayTwo**

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).

**KayTwo**

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**

Verviedi wrote:
My (nearly) favorite topic.

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.

**KayTwo**

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**

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.

**KayTwo**

Spartacus wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
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"

**KayTwo**

Though, the picture does very closely resemble a black and white picture on the Wikipedia project Orion page for a "pulse unit"

**KayTwo**

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.