New Building: Fallout Shelter

That's just reverting the whole reason they added fallout in the first place. Also, looking on the realism side I don't think you could fit a whole army in a bunker strong enough to withstand a nuclear blast.

He's saying fallout shelter, not blast shelter.

Just wanted to point out no-one thinks when you build a bunker or a factory or an airstrip or fallout shelter, it means you just built one of them. I just means your province has a network of factories, airstrips, barracks, bunkers, whatever. All contained in the dot and not spread throughout the province but that's just a game simplification.

The fallout is definitely a large area, but nowhere near large enough to have to defend against. Fallout shelters are just not a good idea anyways because nukes are a late game unit and if you want to get into the realistic aspect nobody in the province population would be ready for something as new as nuclear fallout. Even the US government kept the nukes secret until I think a few years after WWII or immediately after Hiroshima.

Latter, they wanted to publicize nukes to scare the Soviets and Japanese.

Maybe bunkers and fortifications could give partial protection?

Again, no. Nuclear bombs were added in the game likely because of what they're intended to do. The concept of a weapon of mass destruction like a nuclear bomb is unconventional, and technically concrete bunkers could provide protection from the blast but realistically and conceptually nothing can protect you from a nuclear weapon or it's fallout effect. Unlike normal bullets, bombs, or munitions that have been in use for centuries.

Debatable. I’d say that level 3 atomic bomb tech should make forts reduce fallout damage by a certain percentage as with greater nuclear knowledge you also gain better ability to survive it, and fallout shelters develop. Fallout and bomb shelters do exist, like in Switzerland.

Commander Schleicher wrote:

Again, no. Nuclear bombs were added in the game likely because of what they're intended to do. The concept of a weapon of mass destruction like a nuclear bomb is unconventional, and technically concrete bunkers could provide protection from the blast but realistically and conceptually nothing can protect you from a nuclear weapon or it's fallout effect. Unlike normal bullets, bombs, or munitions that have been in use for centuries.

The shockwave sure, but the massive wall of fire and heat would seep through any hole and surround any wall. Literally means nothing if you're protected from a blast, because as I said the weapon is completely unconventional and therefore normal bunkers are worthless against it.

Commander Schleicher wrote:

The shockwave sure, but the massive wall of fire and heat would seep through any hole and surround any wall. Literally means nothing if you're protected from a blast, because as I said the weapon is completely unconventional and therefore normal bunkers are worthless against it.

Maybe you can reduce radiation, but bunkers wouldn’t stop the direct hit from the nuke, as we have agreed upon. While Noblebright is right about real life, I think the game simulates the entire range of the nuke as that direct fireball; damage doesn’t decay as you move further out from the center. Because of this bunkers would have to face the direct fire-blast from the game’s logic, being evaporated anyhow. Perhaps you could argue the bunkers could at least reduce the new fallout from the nuke, but since the blast would destroy all buildings (including bunkers) it would be pointless anyhow.

Incorrect both in real life and in-game. I don't think you understand how powerful a nuclear bomb is. Looking at the small sized Hiroshima bomb, it leveled 99% of buildings within a mile, not 200 meters, and a firestorm went across the city for over 2 miles. Some measly ass bunker isn't gonna save you from that. And since you want to be "realistic," just know that nobody in the 40s or early 50s could be prepared for a direct nuclear strike, and fallout was still not understood so people would likely wander around the blast area and die immediately after, rendering their magical nuclear bunker useless. On the game side, it's just completely worthless. If you are able to counter fallout from nukes, why add them in the first place? Also, why is this a problem? The update was out not even a few days after the suggestion, so clearly it's coming from an extremely inexperienced player. To top it all off, it's not even an issue since the army garrison is completely destroyed in terms of damage and the bunker to survive it would have to have hundreds of hp. Overall just a not good idea, with a bad argument, and an even worse chance of it being added.

Technically in game wise the nuke radius is dozens to hundreds of miles long depending on the map, which makes it probably actually quite the bit stronger than even modern nukes. Still, it can’t reduce a countries population… strange.

yes but cities are far bigger than 2 miles in radius.