 |
|
|
I generally agree. There should be considerable effects caused by depleted resources in general, not only Uranium. The details might becom hard for Macro-play-lovers
|
|
|  |
 |
|
marc420
|
|
Oceania
Jun 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
Another consequence of DU use should be that it should be considered an "atrocity" ala SMAC. Leaving behind a radioactive waste after a battle that's going to cause generations of cancer and leukemias isn't likely to be looked onto very kindly by the other Civs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
DU should not matter because it has no effects on the Civ level. It is not at all atrocity like and may very well have no effect on any level. Now if DU caused a 100 mile area to be so polluted that it was hardly liviable then I would agree with you. But in no stretch of the imagination does DU do that. Compared to the effects of pollution of industry (which is by far the most prevalent pollution in civ) it would be rediculous to make DU pollute at all. I mean compare it to the nuclear weapons. It would be rediculous to have DU do anything on this scale. Now what might be interesting in line with SMACs gas pods (ie weapons that are atrocities) would be tactical nukes and biological and chemical weapons.
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-13-2001 01:32 AM
Umm, about this whole atrocities thing:
I thought the whole atrocity system was always kind of bogus. Isn't the act of war in itself an atrocity? Bombarding, killing, and sacking? Umm, so why should a nuke be looked at as so much worse than, say, 20 armor units razing an enemy's entire country and leaving a civ in ruins from war?
Most any combat is an "atrocity," especially in modern times.
 |
To a large extant I agree. Most standard war practices like looting, raping, pillaging are looked down upon more in the modern age. Not to say these don't occur but in the modern limited wars countries don't do them because they are 'atrocities'. And for whatever reason (maybe even because the country does not want them used on them) even nations which have a fairly 'screw the international community' attitude (ie Hitler) haven't for the most part used biological and chemical weapons (and nukes). So therefore I do somewhat disagree in that there are diffinitely some forms of weapons that nations do not use as much because they are somejow worse.
Maybe there should be (in more modern times) two forms of war (or maybe even three). One that is full blown srew the other guy, another is limited war (ie vietnam). WW2 was mostly the second type but did have a fair ammount of the first type (especially Germans towards Russians, Jappenese towards everyone, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The possible third type would be like the Kosovo action or even Desert Storm (or this might just be the natural result of vietnam) where the people want no losses to there side and don't really want any losses to the people of the other side.
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|