Nuclear weapons GDP penalty?

[Barleyman]

What's the link between using nukes and global GDP damage?

I had six xenos invade in Chile and duly nuked them with three barrages before mop-up force arrived. This caused double-digit drop in GDP in EU, US and India, probably elsewhere as well, unless this is somehow tied to only countries you control.

Climate change was at 1.6C with ~2% GDP penalty while those three nukes pushed cooling to -0.5C, which should make things better but instead caused far bigger damage to GDP. USA even lost one CP as the economy contracted so much.

[KinSeth2]

There is a lot more to the climate than just temperatures. Particulates in the air, gasses in the air. You devastated the earth ecosystem.

[neilwilkes]

There is a lot more to the climate than just temperatures. Particulates in the air, gasses in the air. You devastated the earth ecosystem.

This is so overpowered it reminds me of the CO2 myth - if dropping 3 or 4 nukes causes that much environmental damage then can someone please explain to me how in heck the following amount of airburst or ground tests were done in the 50's through to the test ban treaty:
USA - 1,054 officially, including 216 atmospheric, underwater & space tests.
Soviet Union - 715 officially, including 219 atmospheric, underwater & space tests.
UK - 45 officially, plus an additional 31, all atmospheric.
France - 210 officially, all atmospheric
China - very hard to know
India - 6
Pakistan - 6
Yet there were no horrific GDP hits to any of this extensive testing that 'received wisdom' tells us these days would trigger some sort of 'Nuclear Winter'

It's the same with CO2, which is not and never has been a pollutant that causes temperature changes on the planet.
Show me one single paper that can prove this using CMIP6 models that also include the limited solar forcing datasets (none of the alarmist models are using this at all and most are still using out of date CMIP iterations that are ridiculously oversensitive to CO2, ignore clouds & cloud cover, ignore Cosmic Rays & the havoc these are wreaking in our ever-weakening planetary Magnetic Field that is currently somewhere between 20-25% down in strength since 1859 and has accelerated it's weakening several times to now where it is losing 1% every single year - the magnetic map of the planet is really turning into a bit of a mess these days - see https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default ... 28D%29.pdf
It's all caused by our weakening magnetic field interacting with the cosmos - not CO2 - and it is happening across the entire Solar System as we enter the Galactic Current Sheet.

[Barleyman]

It's the same with CO2, which is not and never has been a pollutant that causes temperature changes on the planet.

You were doing pretty good until this point.

Otherwise, I agree with you, the nuke GDP effect is vastly exaggerated but game mechanics-wise it kind of makes sense. I also do think it only applies to you, not uninvolved parties, but I'm not sure since there are no historical graphs available to check.

[Barleyman]

Just checked and yes it's global hit on GDP.

[dan1109]

There is a lot more to the climate than just temperatures. Particulates in the air, gasses in the air. You devastated the earth ecosystem.

USA - 1,054 officially, including 216 atmospheric, underwater & space tests.
Soviet Union - 715 officially, including 219 atmospheric, underwater & space tests.
UK - 45 officially, plus an additional 31, all atmospheric.
France - 210 officially, all atmospheric
China - very hard to know
India - 6
Pakistan - 6

Very good points, however in the game, each nuke is a BARRAGE of nukes, several dozen. So, converting that to barrages, yes several barrages have been fired throughout history. However, that was over a span of 70 years, not months. However, yes, I too fear nukes to the ecological damage far more than factions using them. It seems 99% of the time, only the Alien Nation will immediately use them - sometimes a faction will if you begin to steamroll them with your armies. BTW, even if a faction does not have nukes in production, but they have a lot of cash or resources, very possible for them to get one immediately from direct investment and nuke your offensive - may the US 3rd Army Rest in Peace

[jchedgy]

I see it more that with the outbreak of a major nuclear exchange (1 barrage is equivalent to around 50-100 nuclear weapons) there would be a major hit to world trade.
Similar to the pandemic or the 2008-09 financial crisis.

[Barleyman]

It's not a span of 70 years, in-atmosphere nuclear testing petered out relatively quickly.

Then again, why would you need a barrage of nukes wiping out population centres if you're targeting armies? I think the effect just needs to be dialed down quite a bit. Although if you're hitting same region four times in a row to take out alien doom - stack, there's going to be collateral damage a plenty..

[tstein]

There is a lot more to the climate than just temperatures. Particulates in the air, gasses in the air. You devastated the earth ecosystem.

Yet it is unrealistic. We had hundreds of nukes detonated durign the cold war,mostly in tests, but still detonations and the GPD never ever flinched from any effect.

For a game that purposely sell itself as hard sci fi... this does not match.

[Barleyman]

If one region of a country is nuked, the GDP completely tanks for the whole country.

I had dozen xeno armies parked in Sapporo (least populated region by far) and duly nuked them. As a result Japan GDP is on par with developing Asian countries, something like $5k per capita. Or was it even less, can't check right now.