Most of what I've seen on the topic of the nuclear explosion effects focusses on high-yield strategic weapons. From this, I've tended to extrapolate a scaled-down version of these effects for tactical weapons, and applied that in the T2kU. Based on the linked articles, it appears now that that was in error, and that tactical nuclear weapons have some key differences as far as effects are concerned, especially in terms of radiological impact. The article abstract is as follows:
"In this article, we offer a detailed explanation of nuclear weapons effects and the misconceptions many readers have concerning the ways in which it is possible to use non-strategic nuclear weapons while reducing collateral effects associated with nuclear weapons."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...uclear-weapons
Application to T2k 4e
The 4e manual includes 3-4 random encounters in which the PCs run across large surface craters, often containing some standing water, and usually highly radioactive. It's pretty clear that the authors were trying to create a post-nuclear conflict atmosphere for the setting and what better way to do it*. I can't fault them for that but, according to the linked article, such craters would be relatively rare, and not quite as radioactive as portrayed in the game rules.
Question:
*Assuming most tactical strikes are air-bursts, the apparent damage attributable to a nuclear weapon might be much less obvious. After a year or two, damage from a low-yield airburst would probably be indistinguishable from that left behind by heavy conventional fighting, and radiation in the area could be negligible. How would a PC be able to differentiate between the two potential causes of damage, nuclear or conventional, to a given area? If damage was created by a low-yield nuclear airburst, what clues to its actual nature would there be?
-