Nukes
 

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...61967-Nuke.gif

I promote that if you glass a planet you damage the climate. This should be a stock effect of orbital bombardment of a planet.

Re: Nukes
 

I had the same thing in mind if I could work out how to implement mass drivers.

Re: Nukes
 

Is there a climate damage type/effect? If so, couldnt you just add it to each weapons abilities to also damage the planet when you fire on it.

Re: Nukes
 

That would be good having a toggle for it... but the tech tree should reflect that higher levels of planetary bombardment weapons do not need to be 'dirty' bombs... but rather just infrastructure and population killers or both.

Current real life world destruction revolves around nukes which we all know to have massively negative radiological side effects. But as our technology grows, cleaner weapons of mass destruction should be possible, like the neutron bomb which destroys electrical components.

Who says WMD's have to be so dirty? What's wrong with clean WMD? In fact, what's wrong with a 'cleaning' WMD? One that not only destroys population and infrastructure, but at the same times rid the planet of all blood sucking mosquitos thereby improving planetary conditions? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Nukes
 

Mosquitos do improve life, in a bizarre and counter-intuitive manner. They are nature's flu shot, spreading a small amount of disease to everyone, so that we have a chance to develop immunities.

Someone once told me that kids who are raised in overly-hygenic environments are more likely to develop asthma, allergies and other weaknesses of the immune system.

Re: Nukes
 

STFU! Malaria, fool! Wiki it.

I wouldn't call one to three MILLION anual deaths due to mosquitos a bizarre improvement to life. I call it a cruel death. Don't forget the millions more in sickness and disability they cause, not to mention the rest of the spread of disease.

I fully support a bomb that would kill 10 million humans worldwide if it completely eradicated mosquitos once and for all. That's far fewer than the millions upon millions it would kill in the future.

Let's get interesting, tho. If I were the one that gave final authorization to use said bomb, and a vaccine for malaria was developed not 30 days after the fact, would I in fact be a murderer?

Re: Nukes
 

I say mosquito's are an invaluable part of the food chain, even though they're pesky little bastards. Without mosquito's, the bats would starve, without the bats... etc etc.

Re: Nukes
 

Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it isn't also in a way of benefit. A prime example I can think of is oxygen. Yes we breathe oxygen, we need it to live, but oxygen is also corrosive. You can see what oxidation does to metal. Well Oxygen is also slowly poisoning the cells in your body. That's why they wear out and we die.

Re: Nukes
 

You know, disease-ridden lifeforms may be a scourge on humanity, but they do a pretty decent job of protecting our planet from invading aliens too.

Re: Nukes
 

haha

Re: Nukes
 

*Moderator mode /on*

Please, easy with words like STFU. Thank you.

*Moderator mode /off*

Re: Nukes
 

BINGO

you can wiki that too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy...ene_Hypothesis

Imagine a world where organisms adapt to threats through natural selection. Oh wait that's reality.

Struggle is nature's way of strengthening organisms. Remove the communicated diseases and our immune systems go to sh*t.

Re: Nukes
 

Natural selection only works on the population level; it does NOT apply to individual organisms, not in the way you're thinking.

Re: Nukes
 

Bingo my ***. One to Three million deaths is not natures struggle Yimboli. It's needless death.

Humans have gone beyond adapting through natural selection by use of technology. We have vaccines now. Natural selection has nothing to do with it. If we had a vaccine for malaria it'd be used, but we dont yet. Besides, there is little adapting to malaria unless you are adapting through a real estate agent that knows a good place away from ponds and the coast.

So your argument is crap.

Re: Nukes
 

Our way of adapting is different from most creatures. Most creatures create new defenses to protect against diseases and predators. We? We build things to blow predators up, and create vaccines to make us immune.

Just that our method tends to not require as much breeding. Thus letting us expand, increase the gene pool, and generally prosper by letting our old and weak people who would otherwise die out, protect us.

Us avoiding deadly diseases, parasites, and generally creating a cleaner world for ourselves is what keeps society healthy as a whole for us.

Re: Nukes
 

Most technology is not devoted to blowing up predators, but rather other humans. But then again, humans ARE predators after all... But technology as an alternative to natural selection seems a bit of a stretch. Natural selection is a neccessary method of ensuring the survival of the species. Only the earliest forms of technology were developed for such purposes. Humans have long since surpassed the point where the survival of our species was threatened.

So if you consider technology to be the human alternative to evolution, then we truly are something unique. We do not evolve to survive, we evolve to dominate our universe.

Re: Nukes
 

Please tone it down a little, Dizzy.

Re: Nukes
 

Alright, Fryon. I'm just a little passionate about it and am intending to raise the heat up a bit, but no one please mistake that for me insulting or attacking anyone cuz I'm not. Everyone has a valuable opinion.

And now back to nuking the planet...

Re: Nukes
 

I suspect he was talking about certain word choices... passion about a topic is certainly not a bad thing, indeed the opposite is the case in my opinion...

Re: Nukes
 

An attack was precisely your intention in your last post. I don't hold grudges though, everyone gets worked up about something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I certainly didn't mean to hit your string.

Re: Nukes
 

Yes, I attacked you. Got a problem with that? Huh? C'mon! Bring it!

j/k

Re: Nukes
 

Obviously it wasn't always like that.

Sickle Cell Anemia

Re: Nukes
 

Level 100 antiproton beams wouldn't just glass the planet, they would probally ignite the atmosphere and send a chain reaction through it destroying it all...

Re: Nukes
 

That would be bad.