Forums of the Megaverse®

Dinosaur Swamp goes into this a little bit for whats left in Florida. Personally, I've always suspected the lack of info on anything bigger than what the CS has out west is due to two things.

1.)Kevin
2.)Kevin.

We all know he hates anything past the Rockies and doesn't want anyone having bigger nukes than his boy toys. So what I've found works best is just to take the random generation table for whether or not the silos survived from DS and use them for the west. Switching out the flavor text for terrain appropriate hazards (i.e. switching "filled with swamp water" to "filled with sand"). If you really want to be fancy you can see which states have the highest concentrations of silos now and adjust their %s on the tables to make them surviving more likely.

By the time of the Cataclysm, I seriously doubt there were any structures we would recognize as traditional missile silos. I may be mistaken and just not remembering something mentioned in the books, but I can't recall any specific mention of them in any book. The technology of the day made ICBMs impractical and obsolete.

Anyone fiddling with high yield nuclear weapons created pre-apocalypse that somehow survived nearly three hundreds needs to suffer a case of acute atomization.

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Ectoplasmic Bidet wrote:By the time of the Cataclysm, I seriously doubt there were any structures we would recognize as traditional missile silos. I may be mistaken and just not remembering something mentioned in the books, but I can't recall any specific mention of them in any book. The technology of the day made ICBMs impractical and obsolete.

Anyone fiddling with high yield nuclear weapons created pre-apocalypse that somehow survived nearly three hundreds needs to suffer a case of acute atomization.

One of the reasons that the cataclysm happened was the launching of nuclear weapons by to South American countries. The book describes the exchange as small and with outdated weaponry, but it still provides evidence that there where some countries armed with them.

I obviously did not question the existence of nuclear weapons, only the traditional missile silo and ICBMs. An ICBM's munitions would have never been allowed to make re-entry into the atmosphere. The SDI platforms of several different nations would have reduced them to slag within moments.

Could there have been dedicated missile launch sites and nuclear arms depots? Certainly. Would any nation waste their nuclear weapons by attempting to launch them via ICBM? Not even in Kevin's most fevered dreams of all encompassing CS domination of Rifts Earth.

The limited nuclear exchange that sparked the Cataclysm would have been carried out by cruise missile or air-to-surface launch.

except that if opposing countries have killsat networks in place, any ICBM attack would be preceeded by anti-sattelite attacks, by both the killsat networks, and by ground based ASAT weapons (specially designed ICBm types, aircraft launched ASAT missiles, and probably ground based lasers), to destroy or nuetralize the enemies Killsat network. this would allow ICBM's to survive.
there is also the fact that Killsat networks are never 100% efficient, particularly after the first few ICBM's are destroyed and the debris serves to hinder the Killsat targeting. so some ICBM's would get through anyway.
and swamping the enemies Killsat network with sheer numbers of missiles so that they cannot conceivably destroy every missile before they reach their targets is also possible.

these are all factors known back in the old 'star wars' ABM program. one of the reasons the Soviets considered that program such a danger was the fact that until both sides had such a network in place, the side who gets their network up first has a window of time when they held a clear advantage, when they could reduce the damage of a nuclear attack on them selves but have full effect for their own attack. since the Soviets believed the US was further along in their ABM program than the Soviet program was, they felt the US was setting up conditions that would lead to conditions making war highly probable.

we can take what has happened in modern times and apply them to the cataclysm. A large number of the silos from the 60's are pretty much forever type structures. some have filled with water but can easily be pumped out. These locations would be available for use as shelters and bases if one knew of their locations. there are maps of where many of them are nation wide. there are also lots of underground structures that are not silos that also would have most likely survived...all though many of these places are pobably burried. detailed military maps may reveal their locations....provided a Rifts Era person could find such a map.... there is also the possibility of some one who had knowledge of these locations being rifted in.... As for missle containing silos...there may be some in locations such as the former Minot, ND...or Cheyenne, WY.

One thing to mention, any nuclear weapons you found from pre-rifts times would be, 99.99% likely, not be working any longer. The radioactive components of a nuclear weapon degrade things like the bomb triggers, explosives, implossion devices and electronics in the weapon.

There is a reason why the US spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year in super computer similuations to ensure we know if our nuclear stockpile is still working or not and sometimes weapons ARE decomissions because they are past their likely useful life.

Now, you might be able to take the fissile/fusile core out of 300+ year old warhead and make a new nuclear weapon from it, but the existing one would almost deffinitely be junk after 300+ years.

For the silos...it just depends. I'd assume ICBMs would still be around by 2098 unless a treaty banned them. So there would be silos and silo complexes (if nothing else the ones from the 60's through the early 2000's) still. Now, the condition...no idea. Some are likely to be completely empty. Some will be collapsed from ravaging earthquakes from the coming of the Rifts. Others will have supernatural denizens. Other's flooded and some in perfect shape.

What would be the odds of any of it...who the heck knows. However, I'd just come up with a little roll table if you wanted to (like roll 1d6, 1 is supernatural creatures, 2 is mundane creatures, 3 is human/DBee inhabitant, 4 is flooded, 5 is old but good shape with a non-working missile in the silo, 6 is good shape with no missile and just needs power hooked up to it and some sweeping out...and probably all of the computers and stuff replaced). That or just come up with something creative as the GM.

I seem to remember at least one book talking about missile silos and the possibility of explorers in the west in particular being able to find them in various stages of occupation or use. Probably in the Rifts: Adventures Guide.

Unless the missle silos were built in places that were solid like a mountain or MDC structure specifically desgined to withstand a lof punishment than I would say chances are slim to none imo. The way the core book describes the devastation that the coming of the Rifts brought they would have all been destroyed. Not to mention some would also be inert in that the half-life of the nuclear isotopes would have expired. Mind you not sure about the last part as I'm no nuclear physicts.

Sureshot wrote:Unless the missle silos were built in places that were solid like a mountain or MDC structure specifically desgined to withstand a lof punishment than I would say chances are slim to none imo. The way the core book describes the devastation that the coming of the Rifts brought they would have all been destroyed. Not to mention some would also be inert in that the half-life of the nuclear isotopes would have expired. Mind you not sure about the last part as I'm no nuclear physicts.

Last I heard Missile Silos were built to handle in many cases a nuclear detonation practically on top of them (after all you want them to be able to survive an unstopped first strike so you can ensure they die with you), so it should be self-evident that they're built to handle a lot of punishment. Given FQ got a nice Glitter Boy factory handed to it and the CS an entire genetics facility just to name a few the idea that something far more common like a missile silo being found by a PC group isn't far-fetched in the slightest. It's really only a question of what they find in it when they do.

Nightmask wrote:Last I heard Missile Silos were built to handle in many cases a nuclear detonation practically on top of them (after all you want them to be able to survive an unstopped first strike so you can ensure they die with you), so it should be self-evident that they're built to handle a lot of punishment. Given FQ got a nice Glitter Boy factory handed to it and the CS an entire genetics facility just to name a few the idea that something far more common like a missile silo being found by a PC group isn't far-fetched in the slightest. It's really only a question of what they find in it when they do.

You are correct yet the way the coming of the Rifts is described it was imo worse than several nuclear detonations all at once. So i'm not saying your not going to find any just that imo it should not be a commen occurence. When the coming of the Rifts was powerful enough to shatter parts of South America I think it's more than some missle silos were made to handle imo.

Sureshot wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Last I heard Missile Silos were built to handle in many cases a nuclear detonation practically on top of them (after all you want them to be able to survive an unstopped first strike so you can ensure they die with you), so it should be self-evident that they're built to handle a lot of punishment. Given FQ got a nice Glitter Boy factory handed to it and the CS an entire genetics facility just to name a few the idea that something far more common like a missile silo being found by a PC group isn't far-fetched in the slightest. It's really only a question of what they find in it when they do.

You are correct yet the way the coming of the Rifts is described it was imo worse than several nuclear detonations all at once. So i'm not saying your not going to find any just that imo it should not be a commen occurence. When the coming of the Rifts was powerful enough to shatter parts of South America I think it's more than some missle silos were made to handle imo.

I don't believe it should be a common occurrence either, but we're also told the upheavals particularly in the West buried entire cities relatively intact and cities are built to standards WAY below those of hardened military sites. If cities could end up stored relatively intact you'd just about need to have a missile silo straddling a fault line for it to be destroyed.

Dr Megaverse wrote:snip..

We all know he hates anything past the Rockies and ...snip

Another way to spin this would be to say that KS has left the west coast a blank slate so the more creative GMs can spin their own tails there.

TTBOMK Missile silos are generally not built to withstand any particular level of seismic stress. That said, I doubt a minor earthquake would do much. They are not a building that will shift back and forth on the ground. That said, below ground the earth is not necessarily going to shift uniformly in an earthquake, and this sheer stress is likely to destroy a missile silo. I'd imagine a silo could withstand a pretty bad earthquake, a megaquake??? I'd bet most likely not. So some of them will have been outright destroyed from quakes.

For a missile silos integrity, yes they withstand a hell of a lot. A nuke going off on top of them, not a chance. They will wishstand one detonating in MILDLY close proximity. Missile silos were not designed, nor would it be practical to design them to withstand a direct nuclear strike. They were designed so that it would require one fairly accurate nuclear warhead per silo to destroy. This would require the enemy to use a very large number of missiles and warheads to take out all of his silos...and some may escape destruction because of inaccurate targetting, failure of a warhead targetting it, destruction of a warhead targetting it, or failure to identify the location of all of the silos. Basically it is to withstand a first strike sneak attack (for example, a quick cruise missile attack). They are not designed to prevent destruction of a countries nuclear arsenal in the case of a MAD scenario. In such a scenario it is use 'em before you lose them and pray some of your's survive the nuclear holocaust better than their's do.

My take is that technology in the Golden Age did away with the old big ICBMs that could be spotted by everybody's satellites and orbital colonies and intercepted by long range energy weapons or smart rocks. The bulk of strategic nukes went to smaller, faster, stealth cruise-missile style weapons and precision tactical weapons(though a few world-straddling ICBMs were retained, at the insistance of more conservative elements in both the American and Russian militaries, 'just in case'). And the SLBM arsenal remained unchanged, what with faster, deeper-diving, stealthier launch platforms being developed all the time.

This didn't stop the smaller countries from wanting big bad high-tech 'manly' missiles just to show off and scare the snot out of the 'softer and more spoiled' big powers, but even there, commonsense was creeping in and most opted for more compact mobile systems like the SCUDs, SCALEBOARDs, and Pershing IIs that gave Americans and Soviets mutual fits worrying about first strike weapons. The mobile launch platforms would have had to remain ahead of the stealth strike drones, laser battle satellites, and smart FOBVs that would be waiting to zeke anybody dumb enough to stick around and reload for a second shot from the same location. It was likely such systems, along with air-launched/dropped ordnance, that mushroom-clouded South America.

The real likelihood is that most 3rd world countries wouldn't have nuclear weapons or would have very, very, VERY few (like 1-6 maybe).

The big boys are too damn jealous guarding our nuclear toys and don't like others getting them (hence the nuclear non-proliferation treaty...and that we don't care if you are a signatory, well enforce it on you unless you are our bossom buddy).

Frankly I don't think anyone should have nukes...but I do say, I do fall firmly in to the "well if anyone is going to have them, I am glad my country is one of the few and likes sticks its nose where it doesn't belong trying to keep other countries from getting them".

azazel1024 wrote:The real likelihood is that most 3rd world countries wouldn't have nuclear weapons or would have very, very, VERY few (like 1-6 maybe).

The big boys are too damn jealous guarding our nuclear toys and don't like others getting them (hence the nuclear non-proliferation treaty...and that we don't care if you are a signatory, well enforce it on you unless you are our bossom buddy).

Frankly I don't think anyone should have nukes...but I do say, I do fall firmly in to the "well if anyone is going to have them, I am glad my country is one of the few and likes sticks its nose where it doesn't belong trying to keep other countries from getting them".

True, in reality, but with the Golden Age boom in information, technological espionage was likely rife...and what with all the little nuke fission and fusion power systems floating around(or exotic isotope power systems) somebody likely found a way to get around the watchdogs looking for yellowcake and other fissionables, maybe even use otherwise benign technologies to rig up unexpected nastiness.
But that depends on your game; some folks disavow the power creep of the South America books to have the Northern Hemiosphere-origin powers maintain more of a hammerlock on the Golden Age technologies and reduce the idea of 'nukes everywhere'.