Voltrovia wrote:Gases
Phosgene, VX, sarin, tabun, soman, cyclosarin, chlorine gas (and an important component of my chemical stockpiles, phosphine, which is very difficult to store and deploy) are all good places to start. Each has specific advantages in different environments and you can find the exact abilities and uses of each from the links below.
Wikipedia and Princeton's chemistry e-library are both good places for research. The latter is especially helpful and most basic substances you want to find out about simply have to be entered before the .htm (i.e. change phospine to anything you're interested in): http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/labsafetymanual/cheminfo/phosphine.htm
Phosgene and chlorine, being actual gases, may not be wise to use. Chemical agents are already terrifyingly subject to weather. Same for tabun, soman and cyclosarin, IIRC.
Sarin and VX, deployed as aerosolised liquids, are probably better agents. The combination would also offer a medium-effect degrading agent for battlefield use and a high-effect persistent agent for delaying use.
Anemos Major wrote:Velkanika wrote:Bullshit, the MGS works perfectly fine.
It's a piece of rubbish. Too heavy for its job (nearly 19t without applique - the Army's ended up issuing a RFI for an 'Ultra Light Combat Vehicle' that ostensibly fills the niche the Stryker family was probably meant to fill), questionable autoloader reliability and complexity, failure-prone computer systems, persistent vehicle cooling problems, suspension problems associated with the turret, recoil issues as mentioned above that can't be resolved for fear of infringing upon its infantry support role and a fair bit more.
The impression I get is that the crew like the idea and its paper-functionality, but that all of that's been implemented so poorly they'd rather go back to their old vehicles.
Which concept is the MGS autoloader derived from again?
Huh.
What sort of components would have feature DU alloys?
Grand Britannia wrote:Sexy people of NS Military realism, may I have your opinion on whether I'm doin' it right, or wrong you know.
Add a column to the far right which displays the figures as a percentage of the total military budget, for scaling purposes. The figures for the Army at least look like some order of magnitude applied to the US' 2013 DoD budget, so they're probably not unreasonable.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Rich and Corporations wrote:That's not even on constant alert.
If the US was caught by total surprise in a period of relative calm, our missilemen wouldn't be able to respond.
If they did respond, it would be a blind response.
You've never been to a silo museum that showed what, how, and why the silos were maintained the way they were. They were meant to be manned 24/7 for a reason: In case shit went down. Just because the Cold War ended doesn't mean the nuclear-armed sub or the Minuteman 3 silo in the sticks is not ready for nuclear war. They are ready.
If the personnel manning the silo didn't cheat on their tests.
Given the astounding rate with which they succumb to mental problems (primarily depression), drug and alcohol abuse and have to have their nuclear handling and clearance rescinded, I wouldn't be surprised.
