Forums of the Megaverse®

Spin-off from the Atlantis thread...

So what do we really know from Canon about the CS nuclear capabilities?

How many nukes did they find?
How many were produced?
How many were used against Tolkeen?
How many have been lost/stolen/destroyed/etc?
Where are they?
What fissile material do they use in the warheads and how do they produce it?
Are they all cruise missiles?
What does it take to shoot one down?
Do they all do the same damage?

--flatline

flatline wrote:Spin-off from the Atlantis thread...

So what do we really know from Canon about the CS nuclear capabilities? (found in CS Navy)

How many nukes did they find? (It did not say)
How many were produced? (I believe it says they can make 25'ish per year.)
How many were used against Tolkeen? (Far as I know,none.)
How many have been lost/stolen/destroyed/etc? (no, text)
Where are they? (on CS Ships)
What fissile material do they use in the warheads and how do they produce it? (no text)
Are they all cruise missiles? (Far as I know there is not text about what missile bodies the nukes are mounted on.)
What does it take to shoot one down? (Luck. Probably another missile is required to do so.))
Do they all do the same damage? (Depends where they are detonated. In Atmo is where nukes are most devastating. specific damages for in Atmo detonations are found in the CS Navy sourcebook. For detonations in space look into the 3G books.)

--flatline

The presumption I've made is that the nukes being talked about are in the kiloton and megaton ranges.
Has recently done research into what is in canon about kT and mT nukes for a project of mine.

flatline wrote:Spin-off from the Atlantis thread...

So what do we really know from Canon about the CS nuclear capabilities?

How many nukes did they find?
How many were produced?
How many were used against Tolkeen?

Not sure.
Read the CS Navy book; it has all the details I'm aware of.

How many have been lost/stolen/destroyed/etc?

I don't remember any mention of any of them being lost/stolen/destroyed/etc.

Where are they?

Ah. Okay, so you're planning to have your PCs mug the CS of some of their nuclear arsenal, then probably use the nukes agains the CS.
Gotcha.

I don't believe that all the locations of all the CS big nukes are mentioned, but many of them are currently loaded onto various CS Navy ships.
IF your PCs finds out that the CS has these powerful nukes, and IF you find out where these nukes are located (i.e., on these specific ships), and IF you find one of these ships, THEN you could probably figure out which ship type is weakest, and mug one of them.
OR you could go after the Flying Leviathan detailed in SoT, etc.

Here's a link to an old post where I detail a lot of the CS nuclear-missile-equipped vehicles. Not all of them can carry Tomahawks, but I believe I mention the vehicles that are known to carry them.
viewtopic.php?p=2259774#p2259774

You might flip through that thread in general- it's the main place I know of where the CS arsenal of serious nukes is discussed in any detail.
Although if you search through the old threads, you might find some others.

What fissile material do they use in the warheads and how do they produce it?

viewtopic.php?p=2259080#p2259080

Killer Cyborg wrote:New Navy, pp 46-48
Specifically, By the early 21st century, the specter of world war had ended, the need for nuclear weapons was no longer manifest, and, as a result, the US Navy divested itself of these repugnant weapons. Some nuclear weapons were retained however, for deterrence purposes, stored in heavily guarded facilities just in case they were needed. Sadly, these weapons and their designs were inherited by the Coalition.
Hand-in-hand with the construction of the CS Navy, the CS military has also developed a large-scale nuclear weapons program.

and

... many arms manufacturers sell long-range missiles with mini-tactical nuclear warheads. The CS program, however, represents a major shift in nuclear warheads...
...CS nukes are patterned after the pinnacle of pre-apocalypse nuclear weapons design- the same design that touched off the Great Cataclysm. These are "clean" devices that produce minimal fallout (long-term radiation) but combine the destruction of a thermonuclear explosion with the enhanced radiation of a neutron bomb. What this means is that these nukes can utterly destroy enemy cities, bases and armies without causing long-term devastation of the environment, or so the CS believes.

and

Due to the abundance of weapons-grade nuclear, a material produced in the power plants of the CS war machines, the Coalition is able to produce 50 devices of up to 1 megaton yield per year!

The bolded is the most relevant part, but I thought you might find the rest interesting.

Are they all cruise missiles?

IIRC, they have both cruise missiles and ICBMs.

What does it take to shoot one down?

Depends. You'd have to deplete the MDC, of course, and I can't recall if that's ever statted out.
But you'd also have to hit it first, and the canon rules for doing so are unclear.
Officially, you get a penalty -1 to strike if the you're shooting at a moving target, with an additional -1 to strike per 50 mph over 20 mph, with -1 for evasive action.
A Tomahawk Cruise Missile moves at about 550 mph, so technically you'd be at -11 to strike.
IF it's also a Smart Missile, then it can also dodge, which would likely add another -1 strike penalty for evasive action (-12 to strike total), as well as provide a +4 bonus to dodge.

With ICBMs, it would work out much the same, only ICBMs typically have penetration aids.

Do they all do the same damage?

Nope.
There's a 100k missile, and a 200k missile, and they have different listed damages (2d4x100 MD and 3d4x100 MD respectively).
The damage for the ICBMs isn't listed.

I would think that ICBMs wouldn't work in the Rifts setting since they leave the Earth's atmosphere. Seems like the killer sats would interfere.

--flatline

flatline wrote:I would think that ICBMs wouldn't work in the Rifts setting since they leave the Earth's atmosphere. Seems like the killer sats would interfere.

--flatline

Yeah, we discussed that in that other thread.
IIRC, the CS actually used ICBMs against Tolkeen, so for whatever reason, the satellites aren't an issue.
Out-of-Game, it's probably because the writers never thought about it.
In-Game, the CS is probably aware that something happens to everything they've tried to launch past a certain altitude, and re-engineered ICBMs to avoid the problem.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:I would think that ICBMs wouldn't work in the Rifts setting since they leave the Earth's atmosphere. Seems like the killer sats would interfere.

--flatline

Yeah, we discussed that in that other thread.
IIRC, the CS actually used ICBMs against Tolkeen, so for whatever reason, the satellites aren't an issue.
Out-of-Game, it's probably because the writers never thought about it.
In-Game, the CS is probably aware that something happens to everything they've tried to launch past a certain altitude, and re-engineered ICBMs to avoid the problem.

I'll buy that. Of course staying in the atmosphere means the ICBMs have dramatically reduced range and speed.

--flatline

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Ah. Okay, so you're planning to have your PCs mug the CS of some of their nuclear arsenal, then probably use the nukes agains the CS.
Gotcha.

I actually think this would be a great idea for a campaign. Especially if you shot the nuke at Splynn . Even if it didn't hit it might just touch off an escalating conflict the CS couldn't handle....or could they?

Has a great angle for either a pro CS character or an anti CS character!

Meh, nukes aren't my style.

It just seems like some forum posters try to use the CS nukes to end every argument and I was just curious if there was any real substance to the threat.

So far I'm not impressed.

--flatline

Nukes would be more threatening if the scale of the MDC were done within the damage rating of the weapons. At the moment they are threatening to most opponents... except the opponents one would deem worthy of such an attack. Really, they are background material 90% of the time.

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:I would think that ICBMs wouldn't work in the Rifts setting since they leave the Earth's atmosphere. Seems like the killer sats would interfere.

--flatline

Yeah, we discussed that in that other thread.
IIRC, the CS actually used ICBMs against Tolkeen, so for whatever reason, the satellites aren't an issue.
Out-of-Game, it's probably because the writers never thought about it.
In-Game, the CS is probably aware that something happens to everything they've tried to launch past a certain altitude, and re-engineered ICBMs to avoid the problem.

I'll buy that. Of course staying in the atmosphere means the ICBMs have dramatically reduced range and speed.

--flatline

Care to calculate the altitude at which the satellites attack, along with the maximum speed at that altitude?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:I would think that ICBMs wouldn't work in the Rifts setting since they leave the Earth's atmosphere. Seems like the killer sats would interfere.

--flatline

Yeah, we discussed that in that other thread.
IIRC, the CS actually used ICBMs against Tolkeen, so for whatever reason, the satellites aren't an issue.
Out-of-Game, it's probably because the writers never thought about it.
In-Game, the CS is probably aware that something happens to everything they've tried to launch past a certain altitude, and re-engineered ICBMs to avoid the problem.

I'll buy that. Of course staying in the atmosphere means the ICBMs have dramatically reduced range and speed.

--flatline

Care to calculate the altitude at which the satellites attack, along with the maximum speed at that altitude?

The safe ceiling isn't specified in Mutants in Orbit? That seems like a strange omission.

If we could determine the air density at whatever altitude is deemed safe and the thrust of the ICBM, we could calculate the theoretical maximum cruising speed by determining at what speed the atmospheric drag is equal to the engine's output. For game purposes, we could just ignore the fact that heat from sustained atmospheric friction would probably destroy the missile.

I'd actually be more interested in calculating what the reduced range is before it runs out of fuel since it can never coast like a real ICBM would do. I'm guessing that the reduction will be so dramatic that you won't really be able to call it intercontinental anymore.

Hmm...if it never gets a chance to coast, can you really call it "ballistic" anymore?

I'm starting to suspect that unless the safe ceiling is above the bulk of the atmosphere, a true ICBM might not be the way to go. A cruise missiles is probably a more optimal solution to the problem. How far do they go in Rifts?

--flatline

Mutants in Orbit pg 84. The Strategic Defense Initiative defense satellites orbit at 312 miles (500 km) from the Earth.

WikiPedia wrote:Flight phases
See also: Missile Defense#Classified by trajectory phase and Depressed trajectory

The following flight phases can be distinguished:

Boost phase: 3 to 5 minutes (shorter for a solid rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 7 km/s, up to the speed of Low Earth Orbit.
midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight in an elliptic flightpath; the flightpath is part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km; the semi-major axis is between 3,186 km and 6,372 km; the projection of the flightpath on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads, and penetration aids such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
reentry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km): 2 minutes – impact is at a speed of up to 4 km/s (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.

Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Evil Genius Prime wrote:Just wanted to jump in here. If Nukes were used against Tolkeen, isn't that area fairly radioactive now?

The CS uses clean nukes.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

I noticed that no-one actually answered the question that I asked.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

Right, unlike the people who actually launched the nukes at them...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

I noticed that no-one actually answered the question that I asked.

If I recall the whole nuking Tolkeen thing was from flavor text In the opening pages of SoT 1. I can't get exact pages right now but nothing was statted out about either the size or number of nukes used or the specific capabilities of the rift defense system.

On another note, IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) like the Shehab-5, and the PGM-17 Thor have an average range of 2000 miles and a top ceiling of 480km, which would put them outside the range of the Orbital SDI platforms but still allow a ballistic track. And the Thor's payload was a single warhead weighing in at 1.44 mT

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

I noticed that no-one actually answered the question that I asked.

All it says is that they were low yield Nukes (CW 01 page 9).
They used approximately 126 missiles in the first wave and then continued further missile bombardment for an unknown amount of time with an unknown amount of missiles.

I think the Coalition Navy section on the nukes has to be pretty much thrown away - it goes into great detail about how they would never consider using the Nukes unless the situation was extremely dire and had only planned firing solutions on Atlantis and the Gargoyle Empire. All other potential targets were off limits with the only exception being if the CS was on the brink of ruin.
Using Nukes as an opening strike on Tolkeen retcons the whole thing.

Giant2005 wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

I noticed that no-one actually answered the question that I asked.

All it says is that they were low yield Nukes (CW 01 page 9).
They used approximately 126 missiles in the first wave and then continued further missile bombardment for an unknown amount of time with an unknown amount of missiles.

I think the Coalition Navy section on the nukes has to be pretty much thrown away - it goes into great detail about how they would never consider using the Nukes unless the situation was extremely dire and had only planned firing solutions on Atlantis and the Gargoyle Empire. All other potential targets were off limits with the only exception being if the CS was on the brink of ruin.
Using Nukes as an opening strike on Tolkeen retcons the whole thing.

I think they later handwaved that as someone over-stepping his authority and launching them against CS protocol so as to preserve the 'no really the CS would never use those except when the Godzilla threshold is met'. At least until the next guy does it and gets handwaved away as going against protocol as well.

Nightmask wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:All it says is that they were low yield Nukes (CW 01 page 9).
They used approximately 126 missiles in the first wave and then continued further missile bombardment for an unknown amount of time with an unknown amount of missiles.

I think the Coalition Navy section on the nukes has to be pretty much thrown away - it goes into great detail about how they would never consider using the Nukes unless the situation was extremely dire and had only planned firing solutions on Atlantis and the Gargoyle Empire. All other potential targets were off limits with the only exception being if the CS was on the brink of ruin.
Using Nukes as an opening strike on Tolkeen retcons the whole thing.

I think they later handwaved that as someone over-stepping his authority and launching them against CS protocol so as to preserve the 'no really the CS would never use those except when the Godzilla threshold is met'. At least until the next guy does it and gets handwaved away as going against protocol as well.

If that is true, that is pretty stupid considering the information regarding the Nuke attacks was presented to us as an official Tactical Report.
If it was just a rogue strike, it wouldn't have a tactical report...

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:All it says is that they were low yield Nukes (CW 01 page 9).
They used approximately 126 missiles in the first wave and then continued further missile bombardment for an unknown amount of time with an unknown amount of missiles.

I think the Coalition Navy section on the nukes has to be pretty much thrown away - it goes into great detail about how they would never consider using the Nukes unless the situation was extremely dire and had only planned firing solutions on Atlantis and the Gargoyle Empire. All other potential targets were off limits with the only exception being if the CS was on the brink of ruin.
Using Nukes as an opening strike on Tolkeen retcons the whole thing.

I think they later handwaved that as someone over-stepping his authority and launching them against CS protocol so as to preserve the 'no really the CS would never use those except when the Godzilla threshold is met'. At least until the next guy does it and gets handwaved away as going against protocol as well.

If that is true, that is pretty stupid considering the information regarding the Nuke attacks was presented to us as an official Tactical Report.
If it was just a rogue strike, it wouldn't have a tactical report...

That probably doesn't even make the top ten of 'things to complain about when it comes to the War on tolkeen'. Just one of many contradictions, such as trying to handwave away the Nazi style concentration camps as 'rogue elements' rather than completely in keeping with the reason the CS attacked Tolkeen in the first place: to kill every living being in the city state.

flatline wrote:Spin-off from the Atlantis thread...

So what do we really know from Canon about the CS nuclear capabilities?

How many nukes did they find?
How many were produced?

two fully armed Ohio class Nuclear subs. which means either 48 Trident missiles with up to 12 W88 375kt warheads each (for a total of 576 warheads).. or 22 tubes per sub of 7 tomahawks each, for a total of 308 tomahawk TLAM's with 200kiloton warheads.

the game stats are vague as to which, you can make an argument for either because the SLBM tubes were not given full game stats, just a rough description.

they also found tomahawk TLAM's which they copied and build with 200kt nuclear warheads, plus the Firefly nuclear rocket torpedo, which is basically an ASROC fitted with a 150kt nuclear torp.

they can produce several dozen a year by the book, no specific numbers are given, and they are implied to have a large stockpile, implying many years of production.

note that these only include the "strategic" warheads, intended to destroy whole cities. the CS also makes use of "tactical" nuclear warheads in the form of Nuclear LRM's, which are comparable to the W54 warhead used in the Davy Crockett system. yeilds of a quarter kiloton or less. no production value is given for nuclear LRM's, but they are implied to be far more common than strategic level systems.

How many were used against Tolkeen?

zero strategic warheads, unspecified number tactical warheads delivered via LRM's. the known story use involved an opening salvo against tolkeen, which was swallowed up by the rifts triangle defense system.

How many have been lost/stolen/destroyed/etc?

not specified. probably zero for strategic level warheads. nuclear LRM's are implied to be sold on the open market by non-CS sellers.

Where are they?

the Ohio class subs are moored at CS naval bases, and seldom range far from said bases. nuclear tomahawk's are loaded in each of the CS's shark class submarines, at 12 per sub. these patrol the eastern seaboard and the gulf of mexico.

firefly nuclear rocket torps are carried by most CS warships (implied to fit into a LRM battery), which can be found in the gulf of mexico, eastern seaboard, and great lakes.

nuclear LRm's can be used by any LRM firing vehicle, and presumably can be found on most major CS military bases.

What fissile material do they use in the warheads and how do they produce it?

as per sourcebook4:Cs navy, they use plutonium produced as a byproduct in the nuclear reactors of the CS warmachine. if similar to real world weapons of the same type (which given most are copies of 20th century gear, is highly probable), the strategic level systems use a plutonium fission warhead as a trigger for a tritium based thermonuclear fusion warhead.

tactical level warheads would be plutonium warhead, just barely above minimum critical mass to obtain a lower yield.

Are they all cruise missiles?

no. some are long range missiles (comparable to real world systems like the SM-3 or AIM-54), while others are sub launched ballistic missiles similar to the Trident SLMB.

What does it take to shoot one down?

not specified, though IIRC the tomahawk has mdc comparable to an LRM.

Do they all do the same damage?

not the exact same damage, they do slightly different amounts of damage (all in the Xd6x100 range), the primary difference is blast area.. they inflict full damage to everything in their blast radius, and that radius is measured in miles. the larger the warhead, the larger the blast radius, similar to real world nuclear weapons.

tactical nuke LRM stats can be found in RUE.

argos wrote:Couldnt a nuclear engine be added to a ICBM to increase its range? it wouldnt have to be liquid fuel.

The nice thing about solid and liquid fuel rockets is that the fuel is it's own reaction mass.

A Project Orion style atomic engine is probably unsuitable for a terrestrial launch.

What kind of nuclear engine did you have in mind?

--flatline

It would no longer be an ICBM is it stayed within the atmosphere, it would be an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballastic Missile). Even if you used a current day ICBM, but changed the nav aids and programming to keep it within the atmosphere you'd end up with an IRBM. A longer ranged one, but still an IRBM. It is exoatmospheric flight which allows such long range, not simply lots of fuel.

If you have to stay within the atmosphere, which for general purposes is considered an altitude of 60km (approximately the altitude at which the velocity necessary to generate sufficient aerodynamic lift with an airfoil (IE wings) is greater than the velocity required to maintain an orbit), you'd likely only have a range of around 200-300 miles. You could build something with longer range than that, but it wouldn't be a true ballistic missile any more. It would be a regular missile, cruise missile and/or hybrid.

A NERA engine could increase the range. However current day technology, NERA engines are extremely low thrust. A hell of a lot better than an ion engine, but very low powered compared to a liquid or solid chemical engine. A NERA engine had been proposed as the final stage engine for the Apollo missions and PROBABLY would have been used if the Apollo program had continued. NERA engines are rather low thrust, but in space that generally doesn't matter, but they have an Impulse about twice that of the best liquid fueled engines (IE they can generate twice the delta V for the same fuel). NERA engines are not suitable for in-atmosphere flight.

The nuclear powered engines in Rifts are NOT NERA engines or any other kind of nuclear rocket. They are likely a hybrid electric turbofan and/or turbojet where the air is compressed through electric motors and heated both through compression AND through the heating of the nuclear core, resulting in thrust generated by both nuclear conductive/convective heating and also the electric motors powering the turbofan.

Such engines would in no way be suitable for a rocket or high speed atmospheric flight. Realistically you probably could not create such an engine capable of more than about Mach 2.5 flight, maybe a bit faster. Turbofans have a hard time being capable of more than about Mach 1 flight. Turbojets can manage up to around Mach 3 (they become very inefficient below around Mach 1 or above about Mach 2.5). At speeds faster than Mach 3 you generally have to rely on Ramjets (which a nuclear powered design can't be...or at least a NERA engine COULD be, but doesn't have sufficient thrust within an atmosphere to overcome drag). Most Ramjet designs become more efficient than turbojets at around Mach 2 and become progressively more efficient the faster you go. Generally Ramjets top out around Mach 4-5, at which point you HAVE to use a scramjet for an air breathing engine. It is possible to create a variable geometry engine that is capable of both scramjet and ramjet operation. This is done by moving/modifying the airspike of the engine so that it can operate both as a ramjet (some portions of the flow through the engine are subsonic) and a scramjet (flow through the engine is supersonic for all portions of the flow). Scramjets theoretically can top out around Mach 14, but there are no feasible designs that can operate below around Mach 4-5.

One thing to add in to the LRM tactical nuke equation. Odds are excellent since the book never really talks about fallout from nuclear warhead long range missiles, they likely have fission warheads (plutonium or uranium) that are subcritical. There are methods to produce a fission detonation using a non-critical mass of fissile material. Generally it is through methods such as neutron enhancement during detonation. None are CURRENTLY feasible. That doesn't mean that the Golden Age tech wasn't able to advance this sufficiently to be able to implement feasible subcritical mass fission detonations using something like neutron radiation detonators or something similar. These warheads would also be capable of extremely low yields, in the 1/10kt range. They also would likely yield very few radioactive byproducts.

1/10kt sounds tiny...but it is still equivelent to 100 TONS, or 200,000 pounds of TNT.

The one thing I still just don't like it the damage of the strategic level nukes. It is very evident that they are meant more as a plot device than a real weapon of use by the CS, yet the damage provide is not plot device level of damage. There are plenty of really tough individual opponents who would likely survive and/or shrug it off. An adult dragon would mostly be pissed that you tossed a nuke at it. A Glitterboy would likely survive (better than 50% chance), etc. I don't think they should rise to the level of being able to take out a God with one nuke, but they should also least be able to have a good chance of mortally wounding something like an Adult dragon with a direct or near direct hit.

House rule, but in my games I multiply the damage x10 for the strategic nukes and I also have nukes on LRM do larger diameter damage. Basically I have them do 3d4x1,000 or 2d4x1,000 MD to the immediate blast radius (300/200ft respectively). Then they do 3D4x10/2D4x10 MD out to 1 mile from heat and blast. 2D4x10 MD/SDC in radiation damage within that mile to everyone as well (including those in body armor. Power armor has sufficient shielding to reduce the prompt radiation damage by 50% and heavy vehicles/bunkers/etc will negate it). From 1-3 miles the damage if 1d4x10/5d6 MD from heat/blast and 4d6 MD/SDC in radiation damage. From 3-6 miles it does 3d4x10/2d4x10 SDC damage and 1d6 MD/SDC in radiation damage.

LRMs cause no radiation damage as the yield is too low. They however do their standard damage to their standard blast radius. However, from their regular blast radius to 2x the blast radius they do 4d6MD and from x2 to x4 the regular blast radius they do 5d6SDC damage. I just don't like, especially with mini/micro nukes that the blast damage is a fairly hard cut off. I don't like it with explosions in general, but I just really don't like it with nukes.

When you said "NERA", did you mean to say "NERVA"?

I can't seem to find information online about a "NERA" atomic engine.

--flatline

Sorry, yes. Typo, NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application).

Nightmask wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

Right, unlike the people who actually launched the nukes at them...

Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.
The consequences for the first are that you destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.
The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet, how would you feel about that?
Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they were doing it?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

Right, unlike the people who actually launched the nukes at them...

Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.
The consequences for the first are that you destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.
The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet, how would you feel about that?
Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they were doing it?

Rather a moot point however. Beyond describing the morality and desperation of most of those at Tolkeen, they were a collection of some of the most powerful wizards on Rifts Earth. I imagine it would have been child's play for them to link the Rifts and an uninhabited dimension, or at least a remote/empty part of one that could be inhabited. Heck maybe they even just Rifted them to Mercury's orbit or something in our own dimension.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.The consequences for the first are that you
destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy
anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet,
how would you feel about that? Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they
were doing it?

This is a total cop-out.

Trying to switch blame from the poeple who launched the nukes, to the people defending against the nuclear attack.
The people who launched them in the first place, should never have done so. Period.

I'm not switching blame from anybody.
The CS gets the blame for launching the nukes.
Tolkeen get the blame for randomly dropping those nukes into possibly inhabited locations (if that is indeed what they did).
Nobody's blame negates the other, not from my point of view.

On the other hand, people seem to think that just because the CS attacked Tolkeen, that makes it okay for Tolkeen to possibly drop those nukes on innocent people in some other dimension.

azazel1024 wrote: I imagine it would have been child's play for them to link the Rifts and an uninhabited dimension, or at least a remote/empty part of one that could be inhabited. Heck maybe they even just Rifted them to Mercury's orbit or something in our own dimension.

Possibly. I'm just going with the scenario as presented in this thread.
If the books state that they shifted the nukes to a random dimension, then that scenario is accurate.
If the books state that they shifted the nukes to an uninhabited dimension, then that scenario is inaccurate.
If the books simply state that they shifted the nukes to "another dimension" with no qualifications, I would personally assume that they'd have picked an uninhabited dimension, giving them benefit of doubt.

I don't have that book, and nobody has quoted the actual text, so I can't currently comment on the real scenario, only the one that was presented here.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.The consequences for the first are that you
destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy
anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet,
how would you feel about that? Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they
were doing it?

This is a total cop-out.

Trying to switch blame from the poeple who launched the nukes, to the people defending against the nuclear attack.
The people who launched them in the first place, should never have done so. Period.

Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm. If any real world nation was forced to deflect an unprovoked missile attack away and the missiles happened to hit other nearby countries one would hope those countries would condemn the people who fired the missiles in the first place rather than their victims.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not switching blame from anybody.
The CS gets the blame for launching the nukes.
Tolkeen get the blame for randomly dropping those nukes into possibly inhabited locations (if that is indeed what
they did). Nobody's blame negates the other, not from my point of view.

On the other hand, people seem to think that just because the CS attacked Tolkeen, that makes it okay for Tolkeen
to possibly drop those nukes on innocent people in some other dimension.

Since by the book they did not drop those on other people. (As it would have stated as such, if such was true)
then yes they should be blamed.

Feel free to quote the book directly, citing the page number for the relevant passage.

But Blaming them for a "possability" is a Fallable logic. And as such is a fallable debate/blame.

If you fire a rifle randomly into a city, is it illogical to say that you're responsible for where the bullets land, just because it's only a "possibility" the you'll hit somebody?

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Feel free to quote the book directly, citing the page number for the relevant passage.

Take care to notice, your the one who is saying they may have or not.

I'm discussing the scenario as posed in this thread, not as posed in the books.
As mentioned, I don't have the book, so I can't really comment on the official version unless somebody quotes it to me.

I said if that happened the book would have stated
such.

And I asked you to support that claim by quoting the passages in question, to demonstrate the lack of mentioning, and to show that the context is such that such a thing would have been necessarily mentioned if it happened.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you fire a rifle randomly into a city, is it illogical to say that you're responsible for where the bullets land,
just because it's only a "possibility" the you'll hit somebody?

Your arguement is irrelevent. Due entirely to the "if" aspect.

Interesting claim.
Care to explain the reasoning?

You can not defend your position of Tolkeen rifting nuclear weapons away "if" they hit some one, with out anything
to support your position other then another "if" scenario.

Why not?

That does not make sense to me Killer Cyborg.

Apparently.
This is not the same, though, as it not making sense.

Nightmask wrote:

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.The consequences for the first are that you
destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy
anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet,
how would you feel about that? Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they
were doing it?

This is a total cop-out.

Trying to switch blame from the poeple who launched the nukes, to the people defending against the nuclear attack.
The people who launched them in the first place, should never have done so. Period.

Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm. If any real world nation was forced to deflect an unprovoked missile attack away and the missiles happened to hit other nearby countries one would hope those countries would condemn the people who fired the missiles in the first place rather than their victims.

Unlikely. In the real world you'd probably blame the country that deflected the missile at least as much or more. Especially depending on the politics involved between the 3 countries.

azazel1024 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.The consequences for the first are that you
destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy
anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet,
how would you feel about that? Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they
were doing it?

This is a total cop-out.

Trying to switch blame from the poeple who launched the nukes, to the people defending against the nuclear attack.
The people who launched them in the first place, should never have done so. Period.

Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm. If any real world nation was forced to deflect an unprovoked missile attack away and the missiles happened to hit other nearby countries one would hope those countries would condemn the people who fired the missiles in the first place rather than their victims.

Unlikely. In the real world you'd probably blame the country that deflected the missile at least as much or more. Especially depending on the politics involved between the 3 countries.

I wouldn't.
I don't rule a country and have no threat of Nukes to relate to so I'll use an analogy of a somewhat more realistic scale for myself.
If someone threw a water-ballon at a stranger and they deflected it, making it hit me instead, I would place 100% of that blame on the guy that threw it.
I'm not trying to insult anyone in this thread but I'd have to be a poke to expect that guy to let the balloon hit him when he has the means to deflect it. Even if it did result in me accidentally getting hit.

Giant2005 wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.The consequences for the first are that you
destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy
anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet,
how would you feel about that? Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they
were doing it?

This is a total cop-out.

Trying to switch blame from the poeple who launched the nukes, to the people defending against the nuclear attack.
The people who launched them in the first place, should never have done so. Period.

Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm. If any real world nation was forced to deflect an unprovoked missile attack away and the missiles happened to hit other nearby countries one would hope those countries would condemn the people who fired the missiles in the first place rather than their victims.

Unlikely. In the real world you'd probably blame the country that deflected the missile at least as much or more. Especially depending on the politics involved between the 3 countries.

I wouldn't.
I don't rule a country and have no threat of Nukes to relate to so I'll use an analogy of a somewhat more realistic scale for myself.
If someone threw a water-ballon at a stranger and they deflected it, making it hit me instead, I would place 100% of that blame on the guy that threw it.
I'm not trying to insult anyone in this thread but I'd have to be a poke to expect that guy to let the balloon hit him when he has the means to deflect it. Even if it did result in me accidentally getting hit.

It's unfortunate that there are people who'd expect you to take that hit rather than they be troubled by something, and fault you rather than the person actually responsible.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:And I asked you to support that claim by quoting the passages in question

Just as you can not reasnably support your own "if" tolkeen did this, but another "if" scenario neither can i.

That response doesn't seem to have anything to do with my statement.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Rosered wrote:Your arguement is irrelevent. Due entirely to the "if" aspect.

Interesting claim.
Care to explain the reasoning?

I already have, you quoted it, directly under this.

The quoted text doesn't explain the above text.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Rosered wrote:You can not defend your position of Tolkeen rifting nuclear weapons away "if" they hit some one, with out anything
to support your position other then another "if" scenario.

Why not?

Because "if" is not a viable way to defend a position.

Source?

As well as it being a circular debate. meaning, If you say this
I can say this, if you say that, then I can say this.. Does this make sence to you ?

No.

You can not utilize a circular logic debate, to defend a position. When all you have is "if" to support your position.

I'm not utilizing circular logic.
And since the discussion is about a hypothetical scenario, it can't be addressed at all without any "if"s.
That's what hypothetical scenarios are.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not utilizing circular logic.
And since the discussion is about a hypothetical scenario, it can't be addressed at all without any "if"s.
That's what hypothetical scenarios are.

Then you can have your "if" scenario's my friend. I will stick to the books hehe.

Then why have you refused to quote the actual text of the book?
For that matter, why were you at all involved in a conversation about hypothetical scenarios in the first place?

RedRose wrote:Rather then begrudgingly say that yes the Coalition is at fault
for launching nukes and Tolkeen, which defended by tossing them into an "abyss" as was described, not on other beings
you attempted to make Tolkeen the bad guy.

Remember when I said:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The CS gets the blame for launching the nukes.
Tolkeen get the blame for randomly dropping those nukes into possibly inhabited locations (if that is indeed what they did).
Nobody's blame negates the other, not from my point of view.

I don't see how I could get any clearer than that.

But you can not do anything other then make the Coalition take the blame for both actions.
A). Launching the nukes.
B). Tolkeen defending against them by tossing them into another dimension.

Sure I can.
The Coalition is responsible for the Coalition's actions: launching the nukes.
Tolkeen is responsible for Tolkeen's actions: chucking those nukes into an allegedly random dimension.

Trying to blame either party's actions on the other party isn't viable; each party is responsible for their own actions.

If they do in fact land an detonate on another beings all together, then both actions are the fault of the Coalition because

Had they not launched the nukes in the first place, Tolkeen would not have had to defend against them. There for by default
both actions are attributed to the CS, and therefore only the Coalition is to blame for both actions.

This is logic. There are no "ifs" in it.

Sorry, but if "ifs" aren't viable, then "had they not"s aren't viable either.
You're simultaneously trying to say that hypothetical situations are invalid, while posing a hypothetical scenario in which the CS didn't launch the nukes.

The fact is, Tolkeen had a choice.
(actually, they had a long series of choices... but we're focusing on just the one right now.)
Tolkeen could have chosen to take the hit. Instead, they chose to pass the buck to somebody else.
It's an understandable choice, but it IS a choice that they made.
For that matter, they could have chosen to flee. If they can open up massive rifts surrounding the city, they could just as easily have used those rifts to evacuate themselves instead of to send a volley of nuclear missiles into who-know-where.
They probably, for that matter, could have come up with a different defense plan against missiles, one that didn't rely on nuking random dimensions that may or may not be populated.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The fact is, Tolkeen had a choice.
(actually, they had a long series of choices... but we're focusing on just the one right now.)
Tolkeen could have chosen to take the hit. Instead, they chose to pass the buck to somebody else.

To borrow your own tactic.

Please show me in the books who that "somebody" else was ?

As I said, I don't have the book. That's why I've been working off of the scenario as presented in this thread.
To refresh your memory, here is where I entered the conversation:
viewtopic.php?p=2580198#p2580198

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Where is the text that says the CS used kT or mT nukes vs tolkeen?

Is asking cause in CS navy they are listed as they would only be used "at sea".

Doesn't matter, that Rifts Defense System made the bombs disappear off into another dimension anyway (hopefully no one was living there at the time).

Pretty callous of them.

The "hopefully no one was living there at the time" part is what indicates the possibility that there WAS somebody living there at the time.
My response is the position that you're arguing against, that sending nukes off into another dimension that may or may not be inhabited is a pretty callous thing to do.

Evil Genius Prime wrote:Just wanted to jump in here. If Nukes were used against Tolkeen, isn't that area fairly radioactive now?
Also, are there any rules for Radiation in any of the Rifts books?

No.

Per the material in Rifts: Coalition Navy, those Nukes are magically "clean" (just like the real-world Neutron Bombs).

RedRose wrote:The Coalition's ability to launch nukes against other target's is highly suspect.

They were unable to land nuclear war heads against a comparatively tiny magic kingdom. Yet people expect them to land
against a multi dimensional magical Empire ?

Not only would Atlantis have technological means of downing those ICBM's before they ever got into Atlantean airspace
But they would in fact also have magical means of detection as well as downing those missiles.

And they would only have to watch / down at most 2,000 missiles. (and this is me giving them 3x more then they could
canonly have geometrically more missiles btw)

What the Coalition doesn't know, but we do as outside readers, is that in addition to the fact that Rifts Nuke Damage sucks anyways, and in addition to the fact that there are any number of mystical defenses that could be brought to bear against an incoming fusillade, is that the multiple magical anomalies between the Coalition and the Atlantic Ocean and Atlantis itself, will get rid of a lot of the Coalition's missiles before the Sploogs ever have to lift a finger.

Giant2005 wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Launching a nuclear attack at an enemy is different from randomly dropping into unknown locations.
The first is an act of deliberation, the second is one of carelessness.The consequences for the first are that you
destroy people that you consider to be your enemies.The consequences for the first are that you might not destroy
anybody at all... but you might well be destroying people who have never even met or heard of you.

If any real-world nation built a missile shield that would deflect the missiles to random other locations on the planet,
how would you feel about that? Would your feelings change based on who was launching missiles at them, and why they
were doing it?

This is a total cop-out.

Trying to switch blame from the poeple who launched the nukes, to the people defending against the nuclear attack.
The people who launched them in the first place, should never have done so. Period.

Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm. If any real world nation was forced to deflect an unprovoked missile attack away and the missiles happened to hit other nearby countries one would hope those countries would condemn the people who fired the missiles in the first place rather than their victims.

Unlikely. In the real world you'd probably blame the country that deflected the missile at least as much or more. Especially depending on the politics involved between the 3 countries.

I wouldn't.
I don't rule a country and have no threat of Nukes to relate to so I'll use an analogy of a somewhat more realistic scale for myself.
If someone threw a water-ballon at a stranger and they deflected it, making it hit me instead, I would place 100% of that blame on the guy that threw it.
I'm not trying to insult anyone in this thread but I'd have to be a poke to expect that guy to let the balloon hit him when he has the means to deflect it. Even if it did result in me accidentally getting hit.

You might not, but that isn't the political reality of the world at large (or even the reality of some specific people who probably would have blamed the deflector in the water balloon case).

Nightmask wrote:Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm.

Well, as I've said, as far as their actions in canon, that depends on what the books actually say.
If it says that they randomly rifted the missiles, that makes me think less of them.
If it doesn't, I'll give them benefit of doubt.

I don't rule a country and have no threat of Nukes to relate to so I'll use an analogy of a somewhat more realistic scale for myself.
If someone threw a water-ballon at a stranger and they deflected it, making it hit me instead, I would place 100% of that blame on the guy that threw it.

Even if the deflector had years to plan out his strategy, and "deflect it at the nearest guy" was what he decided on?

I'm not trying to insult anyone in this thread but I'd have to be a poke to expect that guy to let the balloon hit him when he has the means to deflect it. Even if it did result in me accidentally getting hit.

It's only a small difference between that, and between having them pull you in front of them to use you as a human shield.

Here's how I look at it.
Scenario A: A guy is minding his own business in a shopping mall. Some other guy pulls a gun on him, and the guy panics and dodge. The bullets meant for him hit random people in the crowd.
All this means is that they guy in question is neither saint nor super-hero. I'm not going to fault him for this.

Scenario B: A guy knows that somebody's gunning for him, but he hangs out in the mall anyway. Somebody pulls a gun on him, he dodges, the bullets hit other people.
In this case, the guy's guilty of taking actions that he knew would endanger other people. He knew somebody might shoot at him, but he hung out in a crowd anyway.
That's fairly uncaring about the welfare of other people. NOT horrible, but not good.

Scenario C: A guy knows that somebody's gunning for him, but he hangs out in the mall anyway, figuring that if the shooting starts, he can duck into the crowd. It does, he does, and other people get shot on his behalf.
He's a jerk who's plan is to deliberately endanger other people in order to dave his own hide.

Scenario D: A guy knows that somebody's gunning for him. He hangs out in his apartment, and designs a security system that will send any bullets fired at him into random locations into the city.
He's a jerk who's willing to actively put other people at risk in order to save his own life. Again, his plan is to endanger other people in order to save himself.
And he's had plenty of time to come up with other plans, but that's the one he chose.

I pretty much agree with Prysus assessment.

A slight exception, two people shooting on the offensive sure, but if one person is defending then it is all the attackers fault.

RedRose wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:As I said, I don't have the book.

Well if you do not have the book then you do not know what your talking about.

Allow me to help you. The nukes did in fact not hit anyone. And yet the Coalition still holds fault for launching them in the first place.

Even if the nukes did hit someone else, that would be terrible but, you are faced with the life and death situation of determining your peoples existence, and I would suspect the people that got blowed up would be more pissed at the shooter, not the deflector. But overall I agree with ya, Tolkeen is the victims here and the CS are the ones that chose to start things off with weapons of mass destruction to eradicate all life.

I consider in the real world, India and Pakistan, they absolutely hate each other, they both have nukes, and yet to this day they realize that even if they hate each other that nukes are just not an option.

The CS Navy says how nukes would be a extreme last resort option, this is canon, yet what was the first thing they did in the tolkeen war? Heck, Tolkeen didnt really even do anything to the CS except be to close to them and the CS treated them much worse than they would treat rapists and killers in their own society. It takes a special kind of crazy to want to erradicate an entire city state of men, women, childen ext, especially considering the circumstances of why the war started.

Anyway, the CS nuke capability in canon limits the total number of created devices to 50 per year as 50 which makes no sense to me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Makes me regret my casual comment about the anti-nuke barrier randomly rifting the missiles into other dimensions, to see someone trying to use it against Tolkeen when it most likely rifted the nukes to places without life to harm.

Well, as I've said, as far as their actions in canon, that depends on what the books actually say.
If it says that they randomly rifted the missiles, that makes me think less of them.
If it doesn't, I'll give them benefit of doubt.

I don't rule a country and have no threat of Nukes to relate to so I'll use an analogy of a somewhat more realistic scale for myself.
If someone threw a water-ballon at a stranger and they deflected it, making it hit me instead, I would place 100% of that blame on the guy that threw it.

Even if the deflector had years to plan out his strategy, and "deflect it at the nearest guy" was what he decided on?

I'm not trying to insult anyone in this thread but I'd have to be a poke to expect that guy to let the balloon hit him when he has the means to deflect it. Even if it did result in me accidentally getting hit.

It's only a small difference between that, and between having them pull you in front of them to use you as a human shield.

Here's how I look at it.
Scenario A: A guy is minding his own business in a shopping mall. Some other guy pulls a gun on him, and the guy panics and dodge. The bullets meant for him hit random people in the crowd.
All this means is that they guy in question is neither saint nor super-hero. I'm not going to fault him for this.

Scenario B: A guy knows that somebody's gunning for him, but he hangs out in the mall anyway. Somebody pulls a gun on him, he dodges, the bullets hit other people.
In this case, the guy's guilty of taking actions that he knew would endanger other people. He knew somebody might shoot at him, but he hung out in a crowd anyway.
That's fairly uncaring about the welfare of other people. NOT horrible, but not good.

Scenario C: A guy knows that somebody's gunning for him, but he hangs out in the mall anyway, figuring that if the shooting starts, he can duck into the crowd. It does, he does, and other people get shot on his behalf.
He's a jerk who's plan is to deliberately endanger other people in order to dave his own hide.

Scenario D: A guy knows that somebody's gunning for him. He hangs out in his apartment, and designs a security system that will send any bullets fired at him into random locations into the city.
He's a jerk who's willing to actively put other people at risk in order to save his own life. Again, his plan is to endanger other people in order to save himself.
And he's had plenty of time to come up with other plans, but that's the one he chose.

Ah KC, it is nice to see you hop off the fence and show us your opinion on something. I agree with most of what you said there for the scenario too.

Maybe we can expect to see a bit more of this in the future?