Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mister Incognito misterincognito@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:19:15 GMT
This is a question about nuclear ICBM's and MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction) in the world of Shadowrun. It came about from a recent run we
did. We were hired to go into the NAN and destroy the headquarters of the
Nasty Evil Conspiracy tm, which was in an old decommissioned US ICBM silo-
they couldn't afford a whole hollowed out mountain or volcanoe, world
domination on the cheap. We never found out what they were actually doing
but as we were paid to simply kill everyone and seal the place up with a few
explosive charges it didn't matter. But anyway, I digress.

Are nuclear tipped ICBM's still the be all and end all in the copious
destruction stakes? With all the laser weapons about- even laser pistols now
:sigh:- wouldn't a decent SDI be workable now? Hell, just loft a nuclear
power source- done today for some satellites power source- attatch a few
ANDREWS weapons, form Cyber-Pirates, and tada. ICBM's are fairly fragile and
in space the laser would work even better with fewer dust particle in the
atmosphere to stage down its power. Or whack a really large optical
telescope on a 2061 version of a 747, fly it above cloud height, have
radar/sensor stations guide you in to the general location of an ICBM in
flight, then have a mage use the massive telescope to cast Break ICBM when
he she see's it.

To get around this, could you quicken a physical vehicle mask to the missile
to hide it? Or would radar/sensores pick it up. One alternative we had was
put the warheads in orbit by shuttle then simply hit the rockets to bring
them down. This'd probably be nix'd though by the Corporate Court. They
wouldn't want nukes anywhere near Zurich Orbital or any nasty accidents if
one of the warheads accidentally fell to earth- nuclear wars bad for the
bottom line.

So, would ICBM's be made redundant? Or would as the countermeasures improve,
so would the delivery systems, escalating the cycle per standard development
rules.

This doesn't really have anything to do with running the shadows as this
level of strategic play would *way* beyond anything shadowrunners might be
involved in. It's more just a general interest in how the strategic balance
might of shifted in the sixth world.

Any thoughs or ideas more than welcome- even if it's just a 'Shut up idiot,
stop wasting bandwidth' one.

Cheers.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Message no. 2
From: Benjamin Eriksen benjamin_eriksen@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:12:44 CEST
>Are nuclear tipped ICBM's still the be all and end all in the copious
>destruction stakes?

There is no shortage of controversy on the subject, but after the nuclear
incident mentioned in the timeline section of the rulebooks, it seems that
something happened in Russia after the Amerind terrorists/freedom fighters
launched their ICBM at it. Something fishy went down, and after the
breakdown of so many countries' economies, it seemed that the point of power
balance from MAD became moot. Everybody was too busy keeping their country
from sliding down the pit of anarchy and barbarism.

After things were sufficiently patched up with glue, politically speaking,
nukes were once more in the hands of the powers that be, but little is
actually said of the power balance. With today's possibility of buying nukes
on the cheap from seceded post-Soviet countries, the Sixth World seems a
playground for hobby terrorists or even corps with a craving for having the
final word...:)

It's a good question you're bringing up (I hadn't thought if it...), and it
deserves a better answer than I can provide.

Or whack a really large optical
>telescope on a 2061 version of a 747, fly it above cloud height, have
>radar/sensor stations guide you in to the general location of an ICBM in
>flight, then have a mage use the massive telescope to cast Break ICBM when
>he she see's it.



>To get around this, could you quicken a physical vehicle mask to the
>missile
>to hide it? Or would radar/sensores pick it up. One alternative we had was
>put the warheads in orbit by shuttle then simply hit the rockets to bring
>them down. This'd probably be nix'd though by the Corporate Court. They
>wouldn't want nukes anywhere near Zurich Orbital or any nasty accidents if
>one of the warheads accidentally fell to earth- nuclear wars bad for the
>bottom line.

Well, you either adopt a 'no-atomics' policy or regulate the presence of
nukes so thoroughly that there is no suspicion of any unauthorised nuclear
presence. I'm thinking of regular sensor scans, EVA's, security presences in
the immediate vicinity of all orbitals. This could be an entire orbital sec
force sanctioned by the UN equivalent of 2060, and approved by the Corporate
Court. I think governments would maintain the prerogative to mount nukes or
orbital weapons on orbital installations. Corporate attempts to do the same
could well be a good idea for an adventure. There must be some government
scrutiny on corporate traffic up the gravity well?

>So, would ICBM's be made redundant? Or would as the countermeasures
>improve,
>so would the delivery systems, escalating the cycle per standard
>development
>rules.

I would think so, but maybe the economic position of many governments
doesn't make allowances for further research? Anyway, the idea of using
mages in planes as a sort of last-ditch defense was a good one. I'll use it,
if you don't mind... :)

>This doesn't really have anything to do with running the shadows as this
>level of strategic play would *way* beyond anything shadowrunners might be
>involved in.

Depends on what level of play. I agree that it's unlikely that my players
will go up the gravity well, let alone fumble around with orbital weaponry,
but the idea of orbital bombardment with simple kinetic harpoons (Peter
Hamilton, anyone?) in armed conflicts is too tempting to leave at that.
Imagine vast desert battlefields where corp armies vie for supremacy,
suddenly disrupted by an orbital strike! The shockwaves could spawn an
entire campaign!


Hope this doesn't come across like I read way too many comics. Not that I
don't, but the idea of orbital weapons and nukes in acampaign is damn good,
if scary.

Benjamin
There are no chickens anywhere.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Message no. 3
From: Dark Steel seattle2052@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:56:54 GMT
>Are nuclear tipped ICBM's still the be all and end all in the copious
>destruction stakes?

No, with the widespread desimination of nuclear weapons, the "suitcase" nuke
has gained promenance. THe unltimate in concealable terror. Difficult to
track and easy to place. Low yeild tactical nukes would probably remain an
attractive option but the big ICBM is prolly still the backbone od MAD with
most of the old USA nuclear missle fields falling into the hands of the
Amerinds.

-DS
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Message no. 4
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:13:32 -0400
> One alternative we had was
> put the warheads in orbit by shuttle then simply hit the rockets to bring
> them down.

This would be a little wasteful. You can pretty much drop rocks from orbit
that will hit with the force of a nuke. An actual warhead and rocket and
fuel for the rocket wouldn't be worth the trouble probably, when all you
really need is big mass.

I think Hardwired, by Walter Jon Williams, uses orbiting rocks = political
power.

> So, would ICBM's be made redundant?

I would think that magic changes the strategy a lot. It is actually quite
difficult to detonate a nuclear explosion. The timing of the electronics has
to be just right. It would seem to me that a spell could be devised to muck
with the innards of an inbound ICBM, so that it hits the ground without
detonating, or maybe cut off the rocket and levitate the warhead where you
want it.

On the other hand, you could probably have fire elementals astrally
escorting the missile (at least during the parts of the journey within the
biosphere) who could intercept the spells.
Message no. 5
From: Richard Tomasso rtomasso@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:28:24 EDT
"Mister Incognito" scribbled:
>Are nuclear tipped ICBM's still the be all and end all in the copious
>destruction stakes?

Probably. Though there are other things out there which can do
similar amounts of damage (bio-weapons, EMPs). ICBM does have the
advantage of range.


>With all the laser weapons about- wouldn't a decent SDI be
>workable now? Hell, just loft a nuclear power source, attatch a
>few ANDREWS weapons, form Cyber-Pirates, and tada. ICBM's
>are fairly fragile and in space the laser would work even better
>with fewer dust particle in the atmosphere to stage down its power.

Sure, as long as the ICBM can be targeted properly. It's fairly
easy to spoof or overwhelm a missile defense system compared to
the cost of making a very good one. But, yes, the "Star Wars"
system is certainly feasible in 206X.


>Or whack a really large optical telescope on a 2061 version of a
>747, fly it above cloud height, have radar/sensor stations guide
>you in to the general location of an ICBM in flight, then have a
>mage use the massive telescope to cast Break ICBM when he she
>see's it.

Believe it or not the Clinton administration is proposing a similar
defense system using today's tech. It's not workable. To summarize:
you need to keep the 747 in the air, usually near hostile airspace,
so that's refueling, crew changes, duty rotations for maintenance,
dealing with hostile aircraft and AA, and so on.
The missile is WAY faster than the plane. You're relying on radar
systems which probably detect the missile only when it's already in
the air. If the enemy knows about it, it will try to attack the plane
before launching the ICBM or include a defense system on the
missile.


>One alternative we had was put the warheads in orbit by shuttle
>then simply hit the rockets to bring them down.

This was the system used by the Chinese in Trinity. They hid them
on orbital stations.


>This'd probably be nix'd though by the Corporate Court.

That wouldn't affect governments from doing it. It's possible
one of the anti-nuke proliferation treaties covered this since
it is a viable option.


>So, would ICBM's be made redundant? Or would as the countermeasures
>improve, so would the delivery systems, escalating the cycle per
>standard development rules.

Bingo.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Message no. 6
From: Chipeloi chipeloi@***.nl
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:56:00 +0200
In the asylum, Benjamin Eriksen whispered in the corridors:


>SNIP<

> but the idea of orbital bombardment with simple
> kinetic harpoons (

um thor shot anyone?

those are already up there in shadowrun

its just an satelite that "throws" an "crowbar" (just an >insert
metal
here< bar with small motors for exeleration) down at am location

it was uses once as i can remember when an fleet of ships was
crusing to... somewhere =)
it shot one in front of the bow of the flag ship and they turned back\

> Hope this doesn't come across like I read way too many comics. Not
> that I don't, but the idea of orbital weapons and nukes in acampaign
> is damn good, if scary.
>
hehehe nope just as an possible option
(hear the droowling? thats all the Evil Gm's just itching to try this
little toy out on the players ;)

what about an Wizz Kid (otaku ?) getting his hands on an thor shot
satelite??



--
>If you thought Chipeloi was crazy just wait till you meet me !
Message no. 7
From: Walter Scheper ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:01:29 -0400
On 22 Sep 2000, at 14:28, Richard Tomasso wrote:

> "Mister Incognito" scribbled:
> Believe it or not the Clinton administration is proposing a similar
> defense system using today's tech. It's not workable. To summarize:
> you need to keep the 747 in the air, usually near hostile airspace,
> so that's refueling, crew changes, duty rotations for maintenance,
> dealing with hostile aircraft and AA, and so on.
> The missile is WAY faster than the plane. You're relying on radar
> systems which probably detect the missile only when it's already in
> the air. If the enemy knows about it, it will try to attack the plane
> before launching the ICBM or include a defense system on the
> missile.
>
The ABL (Airborne Laser) system theoretically does work. It uses
three separate lasers: one for targeting, one that's the actual
weapon and one that measures distortion in the path of the kill
laser. Then a special mirror made up of many small reflective
pieces connected to micro-motors changes the shape of the kill
laser to counter the effects of the atmospheric distortions. Or so
the theory goes.

Assuming the theory works, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in
physics to say for sure, you don't need to be in enemy airspace to
shoot down the missile, nor do you need to be at all close to the
missile. Certainly, an ABL in South Korean airspace could shoot
down a missile coming out of North Korea without too much
trouble, and you might even be able to station the plane nearer to
Japan, but that'd be stretching the range, IMHO. I'm not sure if the
project ever produced any working models, but attacking one
wouldn't be very easy if you kept it near an EWAC and some
fighters to defend it. As for installing a defense system on the
missile, I really can't see that being feasible unless your willing to
plate all your missile with high quality mirrors. Also, I'm not sure if
the ABL was intended to shoot down ICBMs, or just more regional
nukes, like the North Koreans missile. Anyone know if they
continued with the project? All I ever saw was information about the
laser itself.

That is all
-Walter
ICQ: 83513580
Message no. 8
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:21:25 -0700
From: "Richard Tomasso" <rtomasso@*******.com>
> "Mister Incognito" scribbled:
> >Are nuclear tipped ICBM's still the be all and end all in the copious
> >destruction stakes?
>
> Probably. Though there are other things out there which can do
> similar amounts of damage (bio-weapons, EMPs). ICBM does have the
> advantage of range.

I think you have to hand nukes the upper limit of any engagement. Biochem
and RF weapons simply pale in comparison to even the smallest of nukes. But
really, if you really need to know the effects of nukes in Shadowrun you'll
be VERY disappointed. The system is completely unable to handle the damages
they can dish out.

>
> >With all the laser weapons about- wouldn't a decent SDI be
> >workable now? Hell, just loft a nuclear power source, attatch a
> >few ANDREWS weapons, form Cyber-Pirates, and tada. ICBM's
> >are fairly fragile and in space the laser would work even better
> >with fewer dust particle in the atmosphere to stage down its power.
>
> Sure, as long as the ICBM can be targeted properly. It's fairly
> easy to spoof or overwhelm a missile defense system compared to
> the cost of making a very good one. But, yes, the "Star Wars"
> system is certainly feasible in 206X.

ANDREWS is a charged particle beam and would suck in space. As for ICBMs,
well their advantages diminish in Shadowrun because space is so built-up.
The infrastructure exists to set up an fairly good defensive network. Most
nukes in Shadowrun are probably mounted on NOE cruise missiles.
>
> >Or whack a really large optical telescope on a 2061 version of a
> >747, fly it above cloud height, have radar/sensor stations guide
> >you in to the general location of an ICBM in flight, then have a
> >mage use the massive telescope to cast Break ICBM when he she
> >see's it.

That's no feasable.

> Believe it or not the Clinton administration is proposing a similar
> defense system using today's tech. It's not workable. To summarize:
> you need to keep the 747 in the air, usually near hostile airspace,
> so that's refueling, crew changes, duty rotations for maintenance,
> dealing with hostile aircraft and AA, and so on.
> The missile is WAY faster than the plane. You're relying on radar
> systems which probably detect the missile only when it's already in
> the air. If the enemy knows about it, it will try to attack the plane
> before launching the ICBM or include a defense system on the
> missile.

You're confusing ICBM defense with TBM defense. Two VERY different things.
And in the TBM role the disadvantages you note are pretty much nonexistent,
well at least no more then AWACS.

> >One alternative we had was put the warheads in orbit by shuttle
> >then simply hit the rockets to bring them down.
>
> This was the system used by the Chinese in Trinity. They hid them
> on orbital stations.

Just use shielded tacnukes. More expensive and difficult to emplace but
you're guaranteed to get the effect you want.

> >This'd probably be nix'd though by the Corporate Court.
>
> That wouldn't affect governments from doing it. It's possible
> one of the anti-nuke proliferation treaties covered this since
> it is a viable option.

The militarization of space makes this a possibility. If people are mounting
THOR/FOBs in orbit there is absolutely nothing preventing people from
skipping the vulnerable ground segment of an ICBM launch and setting them up
on LEO stations.

> >So, would ICBM's be made redundant? Or would as the countermeasures
> >improve, so would the delivery systems, escalating the cycle per
> >standard development rules.
>
> Bingo.

The cycle never stops. However, it can be made cost ineffective.

Kenneth
"Targeting people who are less internet savvy than current AOL subscribers
may sound like a great strategy, but we have yet to see if those people
actually exist."
-BBSpot
Message no. 9
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:56:40 -0400
Tzeentch wrote:
> From: "Richard Tomasso" <rtomasso@*******.com>
> > Probably. Though there are other things out there which can do
> > similar amounts of damage (bio-weapons, EMPs). ICBM does have the
> > advantage of range.
>
> I think you have to hand nukes the upper limit of any engagement. Biochem
> and RF weapons simply pale in comparison to even the smallest of
> nukes.

In terms of energy release and property damage this is true, but I think the
measure of any weapon of mass destruction is "how many people does it
kill?". In this sense, I think bioweapons are much more dangerous than
nukes.

Even the biggest nuclear weapon is only going to kill, say, 100 million
people tops. That includes deaths long after impact from radiation, etc, and
assumes a bit of luck in terms of hitting a really big city and the winds
blow just right, etc.

A single bioweapon, given the right germ, can potentially kill the entire
world. Chances are that it _wouldn't_ (with fast response quarantines and so
on), but it _could_. There is no way a single nuke could ever do the same
thing.

Wordman
Message no. 10
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:40:08 +0200
Von Walter Scheper :

<snip>

> The ABL (Airborne Laser) system theoretically does work. It uses
> three separate lasers: one for targeting, one that's the actual
> weapon and one that measures distortion in the path of the kill
> laser. Then a special mirror made up of many small reflective
> pieces connected to micro-motors changes the shape of the kill
> laser to counter the effects of the atmospheric distortions. Or so
> the theory goes.

for those interested in further details, there's an
articel on www.fas.org on the system, which is planned to
go operational in 2008 according to the author. Sorry for
not providing a direct link,

Arclight
Message no. 11
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:08:19 +0200
According to Richard Tomasso, at 14:28 on 22 Sep 00, the word on the
street was...

> That wouldn't affect governments from doing it. It's possible
> one of the anti-nuke proliferation treaties covered this since
> it is a viable option.

The deployment of nuclear weapons in space is banned by a 1960s or so
treaty, IIRC. Whether that's still valid in SR, of course, is open to
debate based on the wording of the treaty in question.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It was a warning shot that missed.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: 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. 12
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:08:19 +0200
According to Wordman, at 16:56 on 22 Sep 00, the word on the street was...

> In terms of energy release and property damage this is true, but I think the
> measure of any weapon of mass destruction is "how many people does it
> kill?". In this sense, I think bioweapons are much more dangerous than
> nukes.

I think you also have to factor in the ease with which it can be made to
kill people. With a nuke, once you have one, it's fairly easy: detonate
it. Biological weapons would probably be more difficult (nobody's actually
used them in war or for terrorist attacks, so this is open to debate);
certainly chemical weapon attacks are difficult to do right, in warfare
and especially for terrorist activities.

> Even the biggest nuclear weapon is only going to kill, say, 100 million
> people tops. That includes deaths long after impact from radiation, etc, and
> assumes a bit of luck in terms of hitting a really big city and the winds
> blow just right, etc.

Probably not really relevant, but with nuclear weapons, a larger number of
smaller nukes will give better results than a smaller number of large ones
of equivalent yield.

> A single bioweapon, given the right germ, can potentially kill the entire
> world. Chances are that it _wouldn't_ (with fast response quarantines and so
> on), but it _could_. There is no way a single nuke could ever do the same
> thing.

Agreed, but you have to get your bioweapon into the population to do this.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It was a warning shot that missed.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: 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. 13
From: DemonPenta@***.com DemonPenta@***.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:43:09 EDT
In a message dated 9/23/00 10:11:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gurth@******.nl
writes:

> The deployment of nuclear weapons in space is banned by a 1960s or so
> treaty, IIRC. Whether that's still valid in SR, of course, is open to
> debate based on the wording of the treaty in question.

Where IS that treaty, anyway? Is there anywhere one CAN grab the texts of
treaties like this?
Message no. 14
From: Herc airwisp@******************.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:35:36 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: <DemonPenta@***.com>
> In a message dated 9/23/00 10:11:38 AM Eastern
Daylight Time, gurth@******.nl
> writes:
>
> > The deployment of nuclear weapons in space is
banned by a 1960s or so
> > treaty, IIRC. Whether that's still valid in
SR, of course, is open to
> > debate based on the wording of the treaty in
question.
>
> Where IS that treaty, anyway? Is there anywhere
one CAN grab the texts of
> treaties like this?

Demon,

There are several treaties ... here is a link to a
site dealing in Nonproliferation studies ...
http://cns.miis.edu/

Enjoy,
-Mike
Message no. 15
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:25:24 +0200
Chipeloi wrote:
>
> >
> hehehe nope just as an possible option
> (hear the droowling? thats all the Evil Gm's just itching to try this
> little toy out on the players ;)

How about the players try it out on the GBM? :)

>
> what about an Wizz Kid (otaku ?) getting his hands on an thor shot
> satelite??
>
I don't give my orbital cannon codes out!

--
Barbie - Prayers are like junkmail for Jesus

I have seen things you lusers would not believe.
I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week.
Time to die.

barbie@********.de http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html
Message no. 16
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:31:25 +0200
Wordman wrote:
>

>
> A single bioweapon, given the right germ, can potentially kill the entire
> world. Chances are that it _wouldn't_ (with fast response quarantines and so
> on), but it _could_. There is no way a single nuke could ever do the same
> thing.
>
make it big enough, deep underground, and it will, make it even bigger and
it will from the surface too.

Just a matter of dimensions :)

--
Barbie - Prayers are like junkmail for Jesus

I have seen things you lusers would not believe.
I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week.
Time to die.

barbie@********.de http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html
Message no. 17
From: NexVoid@***.com NexVoid@***.com
Subject: Nukes in Shadowrun?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:16:11 EDT
Yes, but I believe what he was trying to say is that the aplitude of the weapon doesn't
have to be as big.

Prepare yourself, another Clancy reference.

Rainbow Six. the bioweapon that was planned was simple, effective, had the potential to
kill much of the world, and discrete. With bioweapons, you can be discrete - not many will
be able to figure out that you did it.

~Nexus





In a message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2000 5:31:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Barbie LeVile
<barbie@********.de> writes:

<< Wordman wrote:
>

>
> A single bioweapon, given the right germ, can potentially kill the entire
> world. Chances are that it _wouldn't_ (with fast response quarantines and so
> on), but it _could_. There is no way a single nuke could ever do the same
> thing.
>
make it big enough, deep underground, and it will, make it even bigger and
it will from the surface too.

Just a matter of dimensions :)

--
Barbie - Prayers are like junkmail for Jesus

I have seen things you lusers would not believe.
I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week.
Time to die.

barbie@********.de http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html


>>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Nukes in Shadowrun?, 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!