Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:30:01 2001
Damion Milliken wrote:
> DemonPenta@***.com writes:
> > Whaddabout a non-nuclear country? Kinda the problem, Dave.
>
> Where exactly is the problem? If a nuclear armed country launches a
> nuke disguised as an SB at a non-nuclear armed country, it's not
> much different to them launching an ICBM at the non-nuclear
> country, is it? It's not like the target country can do much either
> way... And if a non-nuclear armed country gets it hands on a single
> ICBM and launches it in disguise at a nuclear armed country (if you
> meant things the other way 'round), then they've pretty much signed
> their extinction certificate, haven't they? Just like if they
> launched the ICBM directly at the target country...
>
> Now for terrorist application, OTOH, such a disguise has merits.
> OTOOH, I think enough people have pointed out that ICBMs would not
> look anything like SBs to make this all nothing but a cool
> background plot idea for a crazy run

Well, as I stated before, you can but one hell of a warhead into a
SB. And I mean a real SB with all the logos on it that's starting
from a regular airport. Just have the bird explode 200m above FDC's
airport. That's quite an effective terrorist application, if you ask
me...

Zixx
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Doug Browne)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Tue Jul 10 16:35:01 2001
Arclight said:
> Another idea : A nuclear megacorp could use a SB as some kind of storage
> for some warheads. the plane travels on a regular schedule around the
> globe, picks up freight and passengers and drops them somewhere else.
...OK, you
> would need either a brainwashed or pretty much fanatic crew, but otherwise
> it seems quite working to me...

Why do you need a brainwashed or fanatic crew? To land it at an airport and
walk away all you need is a team of shadowrunners who don't know it's a
bomb. :-)

--Dejaffa
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Tue Jul 10 17:15:01 2001
Arclight wrote:
> Another idea : A nuclear megacorp could use a SB as some kind of
> storage for some warheads. the plane travels on a regular schedule
> around the globe, picks up freight and passengers and drops them
> somewhere else. These are naturally technicians doing maintenance
> and so on. Until someone discovers this, you have a IMO clever
> disguised weapon, and if you want to hit someone, whether corp or
> nation, you just plot a course to their international
> aerospaceport, and change course on the last clicks. OK, you would
> need either a brainwashed or pretty much fanatic crew, but
> otherwise it seems quite working to me...

Besides, it would be rather hard to prove that you did it...50Mt
anyone? :)

Zixx
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Tue Jul 10 17:15:04 2001
Arclight wrote:
> >Why do you need a brainwashed or fanatic crew? To land it at an
> > airport and walk away all you need is a team of shadowrunners who
> > don't know it's a bomb. :-)
>
> AFAIK you need a much more powerful warhead if you use it for a
> ground-burst. If you air-burst the bomb over the target area, it's
> more effektive and - even as we speak of nukes - less kollateral
> damage.

More effective warhead == less collateral damage? Huh?


> Exampels : Let's say Ares wants to nuke SKs headquarter, located in
> Essen, germany. A nearby airport suitable for SB landings could be
> either Duesseldorf or Cologne. Both are quite a few clicks away
> from Essen, so you either nuke a good part of the Rhine-Ruhr
> Sprawl, or head for Essen. You would've to alter the SBs course for
> this feat. Ok, you could use a special autopilot (or a modified
> ICBM targeting system) for this, but then you need to cover up the
> fact that there are no pilots aboard the plane.

You wouldn't want that. If your SB shoots for Essen and then goes
boom, I want to see your press statement claiming you did't know
anything. On an airport, I could detonate the nuke and still have a
lot of suspects, not just me :)

> Another exampel : Tenochtitlan (sp?), HQ of Aztechnology. this Plex
> has an aerospaceport, but the inner-city buildings with reinforced
> structures will IMO block a good part of the blast. Again, you need
> to hit your target more precise.

Well, with the kind of nuke you could put into a SB, you don't have
to worry about reinfoced structures :) They'll just resists 20ms
longer :)

Zixx
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Tue Jul 10 17:20:01 2001
Are you guys for real?No mega would ever do something
like that!Drop a nuke in an HQ or an airport?Can you
say Corporate war and large scale retaliation?Can you
say Omega order?Or how about WW3?
The corps work like a nation with their nukes in
SR.They keep them as a token of power,something to
show off and not to use.Anyway a large scale war would
be bad for business and no corp wants that.
The only group that would go for something like this
is Winternight and even they are not ready for that
yet (see Threats for more info).
I liked the idea of the moving SB with the maintenance
technitians inside.

Just my personal opinion!

====-It didn't look so big in paper!!!!
-Ideas grow,Shiro.Sometimes bigger than life!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3nitpicking)
Date: Tue Jul 10 19:35:03 2001
Arclight wrote:
>
> At 23:25 10.07.2001 +0200, Zixx wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >More effective warhead == less collateral damage? Huh?
>
> Well - if you use a ground burst, you need a bigger nuke as your center of
> detonation is in a distance to your target. In order to destroy it, you
> need more power (ruff-ruff ;). If you use an air burst, you are directly
> over your target, and get more effect out of a smaller warhead. You destroy
> your target, but not that much city or whatever around it.

Actually, air bursts will destroy more of a city than an equal size ground
burst. This is because there is less obstruction between the center of the
blast and the further targets. That's why, I believe, that most nukes are
set to air burst; to ensure a proper amount of damage.

> >Well, with the kind of nuke you could put into a SB, you don't have
> >to worry about reinfoced structures :) They'll just resists 20ms
> >longer :)
>
> I don't know :) But back then in Hiroshima, there were concrete structures
> left. And skyscrapers should be pretty though...

The A-bomb that hit Hiroshima was only just in the kiloton range, IIRC. 50
Mt = approx. 50,000 Hiroshimas! The only buildings that will withstand that
will be either 25 miles away, or buried in the ground.

--
Iridios

Pendere Et Illegitimi Non Carborundum
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Wed Jul 11 03:40:01 2001
Arclight wrote:
> >Well, with the kind of nuke you could put into a SB, you don't
> > have to worry about reinfoced structures :) They'll just resists
> > 20ms longer :)
>
> I don't know :) But back then in Hiroshima, there were concrete
> structures left. And skyscrapers should be pretty though...

But they had a warhead in the magnitude of a couple of kt. We could
do some Mt with no problems :)

Zixx
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Wed Jul 11 05:05:01 2001
According to Arclight, on Tue, 10 Jul 2001 the word on the street was...

> AFAIK you need a much more powerful warhead if you use it for a
> ground-burst. If you air-burst the bomb over the target area, it's more
> effektive and - even as we speak of nukes - less kollateral damage.

Unless you want as much fallout as possible, in which case the fireball from
the explosion needs to touch the ground. (Air bursts are pretty clean in
this respect, but ground bursts irradiate the dust they kick up.) I can see
terrorists going for a ground burst...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A bad day fishing is still better than a good day dying.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Wed Jul 11 05:05:04 2001
According to Zixx, on Tue, 10 Jul 2001 the word on the street was...

> You wouldn't want that. If your SB shoots for Essen and then goes
> boom, I want to see your press statement claiming you did't know
> anything. On an airport, I could detonate the nuke and still have a
> lot of suspects, not just me :)

All you need is plausible deniability -- say, someone hijacked your SB
and made it divert its course before blowing it up with a nuke they loaded
on board at a stop along the way. You carefully don't mention the fact that
you were the one sponsoring the terrorists in the first place...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A bad day fishing is still better than a good day dying.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3nitpicking)
Date: Wed Jul 11 05:05:13 2001
According to Iridios, on Wed, 11 Jul 2001 the word on the street was...

> > I don't know :) But back then in Hiroshima, there were concrete structures
> > left. And skyscrapers should be pretty though...
>
> The A-bomb that hit Hiroshima was only just in the kiloton range, IIRC.

More like the 15 to 20 kT range.

> 50 Mt = approx. 50,000 Hiroshimas! The only buildings that will
> withstand that will be either 25 miles away, or buried in the ground.

Or directly underneath the explosion.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A bad day fishing is still better than a good day dying.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking)
Date: Wed Jul 11 05:30:00 2001
Gurth wrote:
> > You wouldn't want that. If your SB shoots for Essen and then goes
> > boom, I want to see your press statement claiming you did't know
> > anything. On an airport, I could detonate the nuke and still have
> > a lot of suspects, not just me :)
>
> All you need is plausible deniability -- say, someone hijacked your
> SB and made it divert its course before blowing it up with a nuke
> they loaded on board at a stop along the way. You carefully don't
> mention the fact that you were the one sponsoring the terrorists in
> the first place...

Although everyone is afraind of small bombs, the one you'd really
want are rather big beasts.
"So, Mr...ehh..Johnson, yuo want to tel us the the terrorists
smuggled a 2000lbs bomb on board your Semibal?"
Fnord.

Zixx

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about ICBMs & SBs (was: Re: 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!