[starlord]

Moongoose: in truth, it might well be that ton for ton the tsunami might be more powerful than the harbinger.

Knowing that would mean comparing the mass of explosives in the tsunami compared to that of the harbinger. For all we know, the tsunami achieves this effect with a very low mass of antimatter when compared to the bulk of fissile material present in a harbinger.

[Mito [PL]]

Uhhh, I don't think there is any way to prevent antimatter from making a big boom if it gets its containment breached, which presumably happens nearly every single time when a bomber gets blown up.

Also no, I don't think that to be a viable "main game mechanic" simply because it's too simple and small, and doesn't change the gameplay in any meaningful way to be considered a mechanic in itself. I still find it one of the interesting options to modify the basic gameplay, make the player actually a bit more wary of bombers.
On the other hand this effectively eliminates the possibility of tightly formed wings of bombers with antimatter payload, since if one blows up, the rest will as well... This would limit the use of antimatter to single out-of-formation bombers, maybe some that would attempt to sneak in while the enemy fighters are occupied... Hm, this might be a couple interesting changes to the retail gameplay formula.


Also, regarding all the people jacking off to "well you can just RKV/asteroid strike a planet so nothing else matters", 1. y u no fun, 2. there's no reason to actually do that, because you usually lose more that way than gain. Unless you are or you face some super xenocidal species, but that's an edge case.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Listen, it doesn't matter if you can potentially destroy a planet, it matter if by doing so you actually achieve someting. Making a planet uninhabitable for generations or even permanently generally doesn't get you things you want from control of planetary body - starting with an economical way of exploiting its mineral ressources, and ending with having space to put a population (which, you know, should be able to sustain itself in new envoirment - preferably in a manner that produces more than it cost the rest of your civilisation)

As someone that has been playing the heck out of Stellaris, including some nasty genocidal factions, I have yet to destroy a planet, or even wipe out the pop from orbit for exactly that kind of reason

I general, there are few reasons to trash a perfectly fine world aside from making a show of force or some constraint makes ruining the place a more viable option than regular conquest.

[Nightmare]

A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet, depending on what you're looking for there. For mining, you could probably just set up new mines while populating the planet doesn't seem to be feasible much.

[General Battuta]

Also, regarding all the people jacking off to "well you can just RKV/asteroid strike a planet so nothing else matters", 1. y u no fun, 2. there's no reason to actually do that, because you usually lose more that way than gain. Unless you are or you face some super xenocidal species, but that's an edge case.

Find/replace 'city' for 'planet' and you'll realize exactly why this logic would predominate.

[General Battuta]

A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet

Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.

[Nightmare]

A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet

Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.

Contaminating an area for the the whole foreseeable future (hundreds of years+) is actually the very point behind "salted" nuclear weapons like the Harbinger.

[0rph3u5]

Uhhh, I don't think there is any way to prevent antimatter from making a big boom if it gets its containment breached, which presumably happens nearly every single time when a bomber gets blown up.

Long term antimatter storage is purely theoretical anyway, as has not been successfully done - so I don't see why by the time you can make enough to equip warheads with it, some form control mechanism doesn't exist as well - actually I would say it is a technical requirment to harnessing anti-matter for a weapon.

A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet

Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.

... multiply those numbers with at least 5, and add the effects of hightend ambient radiation levels on a century scale.

[0rph3u5]

A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet

Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.

Contaminating an area for the the whole foreseeable future (hundreds of years+) is actually the very point behind "salted" nuclear weapons like the Harbinger.

Wrong. The point of a salted warhead is not long-term contamination but the immidiate contamination with high levels of radiation that would be only lethal in the short term, and last only so long as to exceed the capacity of supplies in shelters. The theoretical concept for a salted warhead uses Cobalt-60, which has a half life of 5.27 years - meaning the contamination would be managable within a century.

Still dispicable, but at least somewhat rational.

[Nightmare]

Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".

[0rph3u5]

Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".

I get the distinct impression that you need to read up on some of the basics of how radioactivity and radioactive decay actually work.

[DefCynodont119]

Also, regarding all the people jacking off to "well you can just RKV/asteroid strike a planet so nothing else matters", 1. y u no fun, 2. there's no reason to actually do that, because you usually lose more that way than gain. Unless you are or you face some super xenocidal species, but that's an edge case.

This is already super off topic but I wanted to point out something I think Sci-fy doesn't consider enough:

When it comes to different species fighting, it's probably safe to assume that the environment one lives on is not-easy-compatible with the other's biome; it doesn't have to be "they breathe methane we breathe oxygen" it could be more like, "their homeworld has 1.32Gs and half as much oxygen and constant 40% humidly and our food is toxic to them and ect. . ." And the crustal layers of planets are not as heavy-mineral rich or as easy to mine as a good quality asteroid field.  So the gain via taking over an alien world may not be all that incentivizing.


That said I do agree, why be aggressive with an alien civilization in the first place?     Space is big and full of resources, and Information/data/knowledge is valuable trade, so why give yourself the crippling anxiety of RKVs/asteroid strikes/black space paint/biowar weapons when you can just like, not escalate it that far?

Find/replace 'city' for 'planet' and you'll realize exactly why this logic would predominate.

Yeah but that goes both ways:

Why blow up a city when you can just take out the military base? 

Why kill the planet when you can take out the space-docks?

Plus you and your enemy would most likely have your space military's infrastructure off-world and at least a short ways away from your home planets, if just for logistical reasons and nothing else.  DeltaV always has the final say.

I would think if you wanted to stop someones space war-machine, it would make much more sense to deny the enemy SPACE then planets. 

To make one more analogy: If space is an ocean, then Planets are NOT the islands, they are the supporting country's/continent's inland government, all the naval/space infrastructure in on the coast/in orbit, and the islands are space stations/dwarf-planets/mining sites in-between.



TLDR: Most alien's planets are probably toxic to each other and a space navy is gonna get all it's ship parts from factories that are in space too so attacking planets might be kinda unnecessary.

[Nightmare]

Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".

I get the distinct impression that you need to read up on some of the basics of how radioactivity and radioactive decay actually work.

 

[General Battuta]

A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet

Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.

Contaminating an area for the the whole foreseeable future (hundreds of years+) is actually the very point behind "salted" nuclear weapons like the Harbinger.

Are you trying to argue about what the Harbinger does, or whether a bomb that contains radioactive areas is enough to end all colonization? Those are two different things. You need to be clearer.

Tantalum only has a half-life of 100 days. I don't know how fast the radiation would drop to truly safe levels but you'll be down to 1/64th in just two years and 1/512th in three.

[Nightmare]

My take was that the Harbinger was originally a weapon, ending all colonisation on the effected planets.

According to the tech description, the Harbinger existed for a considerable time before 2335. I would presume that it was used as a weapon for orbital bombardment to render planets uninhabitable instead of "only" destroying everything on the surface (except maybe machine-based mining to a degree); because AFAIK there's no other advantage from having a salted nuke instead of a non-salted one apart from causing more contamination.

About how long this would last depends on what materials would be used of course. Also it would follow the same formula that accounts for all dirty bombs - the bigger the area you want to contaminate, the smaller the actual dose.

[General Battuta]

You said "A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet."

This is not true.

According to the tech description, the Harbinger existed for a considerable time before 2335. I would presume that it was used as a weapon for orbital bombardment to render planets uninhabitable instead of "only" destroying everything on the surface (except maybe machine-based mining to a degree); because AFAIK there's no other advantage from having a salted nuke instead of a non-salted one apart from causing more contamination.

Of course there is: killing people!

[Nightmare]

You said "A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet."

This is not true.

Yeah, a single bomb probably won't do.

Of course there is: killing people!

What kind of colonisation do you expect there? Most colonists won't live in some sparsely populated rural area doing farming. The target for bombardment will most likely be cities, mining sites, industry etc; you'll be able to kill 95+% of them by just dropping non-salted nukes.

[General Battuta]

You said "A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet."

This is not true.

Yeah, a single bomb probably won't do.

Even a large number of bombs with the right design don't have to render a planet uninhabitable.

[Nightmare]

Possibly, even though we know nothing about GTAs military potential. But to end all colonisation efforts you only have to reduce the economic value of the planet to 0; no need to convert the whole surface into a radioactive wasteland.

[0rph3u5]

That said I do agree, why be aggressive with an alien civilization in the first place? 

Cult of Action, maybe? Fetishising homogenity, perhaps? Any number of Fragility Propositions come to mind...

Don't get me wrong, coexistence is more utlitarian solution anyway - esspecially if you are a soft power practitioner.

Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".

I get the distinct impression that you need to read up on some of the basics of how radioactivity and radioactive decay actually work.

 

You talk as if all ionising radiation exposure were created equal, which it is not. Since Battuta already brought up the point about that radiation levels would be decaying exponentially, I won't bother with that.

The danger of ionising radiation comes from its commulative effects through exposure, however the effect of each individual instance of exposure can vary greatly based on type of radiation, duration of exposure and tissue exposed. The effects of exposure also don't manifest immediately, unless you are already within the lethal range of >=1 Sv (which has 10 percent lethality rate in 30 days after the limit is crossed; 6 Sv has a lethality rate 100 percent within 14 days).

The problem with radiation management usually boils down to being able collect sufficent information to manage the exposure of an individual, esspecially if an individual unknowingly has contact with radiogenic material.

there's no other advantage from having a salted nuke instead of a non-salted one apart from causing more contamination.

Considering the faction deploying the salted warhead knows the properties of the warheads they deploy, while the defenders do not, the use of the salted warhead would force the defenders to stay in their shelters or risk unknown levels of exposure - while the attackers have advantage being able to plan for a follow-up attack. The period of highest radiation can also be tailored by chosing the right radiogenic material to starve the defenders in their shelters.

It's a way to prepare the battlefield for the maximum advantage for the attacker...


... not worth the spiral of escalation that would kick off ... but hey xenophobia and a death-wish typically go hand in hand.