This is the conclusion thatShe should feel safe here. Reach was one of the UNSC’s largest industrial bases, ringed with high-orbit gun batteries, space docks, and a fleet of heavily-armed capital ships. On the planet’s surface were Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools, and between her underground facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete. The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke.
So why did she feel so vulnerable?
Later, to show how amazingly stupid it is to assume that the author is being literal about an undefined room taking a nuclear blast, rather than the 300 meters of hardened concreate and steel, I posted this:higbvuyb:
"The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke."
'The room where she now stood'. This obviously refers to, well, the room in which she is standing, not the whole facility.
Not that an 80 megaton EPW is enough to destroy something buried under two kilometres of granite, of course. Meaning that the statement becomes even more nonsensical when interpreted as you would.
Compare:Now, your statement is like me saying 'I'm wearing heavy plate armor of the finest steel, with chain mail covering the gaping holes, and leather to keep the chains from irritating my skin and to cushion any blows. As I stood, I could take a sword strike across the chest.
Now, as you can see here, I am indicating a very similar method of description that the author did in his quote. In both our quotes, we refer to a common knowledge sort of protection. For the Halo novel, it’s 300 meters of steel and concrete, something that someone would find similar to a modern military nuke bunker. For my quote, it’s the plate, chain, and leather used in medieval times. But the most important similarity is the last two:She should feel safe here. Reach was one of the UNSC’s largest industrial bases, ringed with high-orbit gun batteries, space docks, and a fleet of heavily-armed capital ships. On the planet’s surface were Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools, and between her underground facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete. The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke.
‘The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke.’
And mine:
‘As I stood, I could take a sword strike across the chest.’
Alone, each sentence would be assumed to be literally by the average reader. And such readers would be confused; why is the sword strike or the nuke strike ineffective? Rooms aren’t immune to nuclear weapons and humans sure as hell can’t laugh off sword blows to the chest. However, when we take it in context with the rest of the paragraph, we get the reasons as for why these things are possible. For the novel, the room is located under 300 meters of concrete and steel, something commonly used in bunkers and it’s stated that her facility was within the bunker. For my quote, the human is wearing plate armor, which would easily deflect any blow to the chest. In other words the accumulated knowledge from the other the rest of the paragraph clues in the reader that the last sentence of each is not to be taken literally.
And before someone goes on to claim how assuming that the author isn’t being literal can be used as a means to misquote them, allow me to point out that terms such as pulverize and vaporize are also used very commonly in sci-fi and fantasy. And in many cases, the terms are not literal, but to show a great deal of damage was done.