SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Mith » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:32 am

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=172303

Reading further, we see Leo1 face down as multiple members pound his asinine claims with simple logic and evidence.

Is it Sunday already?:p

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:02 am

Mith wrote:http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=172303

Reading further, we see Leo1 face down as multiple members pound his asinine claims with simple logic and evidence.

Is it Sunday already?:p
I have been reading that, i sent the guy called jared a bit of info regarding the ICS and BDZ along with other stuff as i choose not to post on SB any more due to the fucked up moderation standards.

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Trinoya » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:24 pm

I've been following with mild interest. The simple fact that Ricery hasn't been outright banned for some of his claims is laughable and has turned me off from posting on SB.com.

My personal favorite claims from Ricery are in regards to TDiC as being a single digit kiloton event and then turning around and claiming knife spitting ranges (completely oblivious to the fact that in order for his prior arguments in the same post in regards to TDiC to have any validity at all that he would need to accept the weapon ranges demonstrated)... It's laughable as to how obviouslly bias he is to the point of claiming petaton weapons for starwars...


Yeah.. Maybe when the community is a bit less anti trek and stargate I'll go over... but as it stands I've been seeing the anti-trek trend returning...

I don't actually blame the moderators there.. I've noticed a few of them, even thannatos, commenting on some of the absurdity since it was too much for even them...

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:41 pm

Trinoya wrote:I've been following with mild interest. The simple fact that Ricery hasn't been outright banned for some of his claims is laughable and has turned me off from posting on SB.com.

My personal favorite claims from Ricery are in regards to TDiC as being a single digit kiloton event and then turning around and claiming knife spitting ranges (completely oblivious to the fact that in order for his prior arguments in the same post in regards to TDiC to have any validity at all that he would need to accept the weapon ranges demonstrated)... It's laughable as to how obviouslly bias he is to the point of claiming petaton weapons for starwars...


Yeah.. Maybe when the community is a bit less anti trek and stargate I'll go over... but as it stands I've been seeing the anti-trek trend returning...

I don't actually blame the moderators there.. I've noticed a few of them, even thannatos, commenting on some of the absurdity since it was too much for even them...
They have a couple of warsies they ban but they are more token warsies that they do it too along with several trek supporters. The main warsies like leo1 and a few others never or hardly ever recieve a ban even though they break the rules considerably more than most of the trek posters who get banned.

The system is:

1. Ask for proof from trekkie.

2. Deny validity of proof from trekkie when its given.

3. Demand more proof.

4. Deny validity of more proof if its given.

5. Keep repeating until no more proof is given.

6. Get moderator to ban trekkie for not supporting claims by providing proof demanded by Leo1 and crew...

They do it a lot so you have to attack their claims of it not being proof from the start cos if you do not you essentiall hand over what is or is not "proof" to them. It is how SDN operates actually as they disalow any material that contradicts them instead of addressing it and having to refute it.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:23 pm

Trinoya wrote:I've been following with mild interest. The simple fact that Ricery hasn't been outright banned for some of his claims is laughable and has turned me off from posting on SB.com.

My personal favorite claims from Ricery are in regards to TDiC as being a single digit kiloton event and then turning around and claiming knife spitting ranges (completely oblivious to the fact that in order for his prior arguments in the same post in regards to TDiC to have any validity at all that he would need to accept the weapon ranges demonstrated)... It's laughable as to how obviouslly bias he is to the point of claiming petaton weapons for starwars...


Yeah.. Maybe when the community is a bit less anti trek and stargate I'll go over... but as it stands I've been seeing the anti-trek trend returning...

I don't actually blame the moderators there.. I've noticed a few of them, even thannatos, commenting on some of the absurdity since it was too much for even them...
Ricery is quite a simple. He's not a debater, he's a waste of time. He's also a convenient fuse to burn when you want to show that you can moderate warsies. Nothing impressive there, the leeway he gets, along other trolls and sockpuppets is quite baffling, when you know it's a board where you get banned for bad arguments and pseudo bad behaviour. ;)

Mith, check the Base Delta Zero thread, I've been keeping notes there as well.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Praeothmin » Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:11 pm

I've had a similar argument with InvaderSkooj over at ASVS a few months ago, and my basic stance, which he was never able to disprove, was that 3 ISDs firing 1 or 2 HTL shots per second, at 1 MT per shot, could indeed destroy all life on an Earth-like planet within 24 hours.

The Caamas incident is in the same ballpark as TESB, and a bit higher then AotC and RotS as far as Firepower is concerned...

But yeah, what I noticed most was that in his first post, Leo1 described what he thought would happen, then stated he would never be back in the thread again... And guess what he did... :)

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:31 pm

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:The system is:

1. Ask for proof from trekkie.

2. Deny validity of proof from trekkie when its given.

3. Demand more proof.

4. Deny validity of more proof if its given.

5. Keep repeating until no more proof is given.

6. Get moderator to ban trekkie for not supporting claims by providing proof demanded by Leo1 and crew...
This is nothing new, or even specific to SBC or SDN. Even here on SFJN, some of them come here and try that. Just go look up Kane Starkiller's postings here, and watch how he demands ever greater amounts of proof with increasingly stringent parameters from pro-Trek debators. If you can find copies of the old Strek-vs-Swars forum, or go take a look at the ST-vs-SW forums from years ago, you'll again see similar behavior.
-Mike

User1356
Padawan
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by User1356 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:05 pm

Praeothmin wrote:I've had a similar argument with InvaderSkooj over at ASVS a few months ago, and my basic stance, which he was never able to disprove, was that 3 ISDs firing 1 or 2 HTL shots per second, at 1 MT per shot, could indeed destroy all life on an Earth-like planet within 24 hours.

The Caamas incident is in the same ballpark as TESB, and a bit higher then AotC and RotS as far as Firepower is concerned...

But yeah, what I noticed most was that in his first post, Leo1 described what he thought would happen, then stated he would never be back in the thread again... And guess what he did... :)
You mean the one where you offered no proof to support your ideas, while dismissing scientific proof showing greater energy events having a lesser effect? Right.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:34 pm

Praeothmin wrote:I've had a similar argument with InvaderSkooj over at ASVS a few months ago, and my basic stance, which he was never able to disprove, was that 3 ISDs firing 1 or 2 HTL shots per second, at 1 MT per shot, could indeed destroy all life on an Earth-like planet within 24 hours.

The Caamas incident is in the same ballpark as TESB, and a bit higher then AotC and RotS as far as Firepower is concerned...

But yeah, what I noticed most was that in his first post, Leo1 described what he thought would happen, then stated he would never be back in the thread again... And guess what he did... :)
I do find it interesting that LEO1 is claiming the Hiroshima example is a bad one when it is quite simular to what we see in regards to examples of some of the BDZ stuff posted.

The only differance is that the USA did not send in ground troops and aircraft to "mop up" after the bomb while we have it clearly mentioned that the Empire after their bombardment does.

That to me says that the bombardment is mearly the first part of a BDZ and it has the effect of nukes in regards to the surface, but as with a nuke attack there are survivors who need to be killed by ground and air forces if genocide is the goal.

His position on the natural resource thing is also stupid and contradictory, it is clearly shown that the "destruction" of the mines ect is mearly collapsing them and not "destroying" the material being mined, however when it is in regards to arable land he insists that the comment "destroy/destruction" MUST be taken literally.

However when it is in regards to arable land he insists that the comment "destroy/destruction" MUST be taken literally.

Look at this crap:

The destruction of natural resources (in the World to Conquer quote, the Galaxy Guide more focuses on assets of production) in so far as mines are concerned never referred to the actual annihilation of the entire resource which is the subject of the mine, as far as I'm concerned. The point is only that to really destroy a mine in as permanent fashion as possible you need to do quite a bit more than say blow up the entrance with a low-range nuclear blast, just as with arable land you need to do more than shoot at it.
You need to destroy the stuff in the ground to make a mine useless pal and you aint doin that with a 1 meter slagging lol......

He knows its a HUGE contradiction as a mine is a place to gain a natural resourse just like arable land is.

But he claims that they do not refer to the destruction of the actual resource which is the subject of the mine, well arable land is a place they get resource from and they do not mention the actual resource they get from it either.

To destroy the material in mines to the point of being unable to use them you would need to slag the planet down for MILES not a meter.
Because of course 'farm' = 'arable land'. And all that it'd take to use a farm that's been merely blown up is to flatten out a patch of earth and commence agriculture again. Good job.
And all it takes to get to materials under the ground is to dig another hole.............

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:41 am

InvaderSkooj wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:I've had a similar argument with InvaderSkooj over at ASVS a few months ago, and my basic stance, which he was never able to disprove, was that 3 ISDs firing 1 or 2 HTL shots per second, at 1 MT per shot, could indeed destroy all life on an Earth-like planet within 24 hours.

The Caamas incident is in the same ballpark as TESB, and a bit higher then AotC and RotS as far as Firepower is concerned...

But yeah, what I noticed most was that in his first post, Leo1 described what he thought would happen, then stated he would never be back in the thread again... And guess what he did... :)
You mean the one where you offered no proof to support your ideas, while dismissing scientific proof showing greater energy events having a lesser effect? Right.
One very interesting thing is that you have diminishing returns on higher-energy weapons.

A 100 joule arrow, well-aimed, can kill anyone. A 500 joule pistol bullet is if anything more likely to cause a lethal wound, but is not likely to kill five people. A machine gunner will spend easily 100 kilojoules of powder per death caused. A 10 megajoule artillery shell might kill a dozen men out in the open.

A gigajoule bomb? Maybe several dozen.

In the case of nuclear-scale weaponry, where the aim is area coverage, effective destruction is called "megatonnage." The power ratio used to calculate megatonnage is the 2/3 power of yield. Thus, a 1 kiloton device causes lethal effects in an area roughly 1% of the size of a megaton device. A 1000 megaton device only depopulates 100 times the area of a megaton device.

To shoot every human in the face, on Earth, is as simple as coming up with 6 billion bullets and aiming them precisely. At one megaton per bolt and 6 bolts per second (2 HTL per ISD x 3 ISDs) we have 518,400 bolts. With Earth having 150 million kilometers of land area, this gives you 290 km^2 per bolt. Some surface is more or less barren.

A megaton device will cause 3rd degree burns at a radius of 8 km. At this radius, roughly 50% of people will be injured by blast effects as well. On the scale of a continuous planetary bombardment, medical treatment will be unavailable, and the firestorms will spread. Survivors will not only have to cope with third degree burns, but do so while receiving additional second and first degree burns from nearby devices, raging firestorms, and choking levels of atmospheric dust. Mop-up operations with TIEs and stormtroopers would be necessary to make a thorough job and pick up the occasional odd overlooked corner - as, of course, exhibited in Caamas.

6 per second for 24 hours is actually in the right ballpark for extinction of most land life via megaton devices. It will also likely burn most vegetation on land and kick up enough dust and debris to obscure the sun. Use of a larger number of lower-yield bolts would be more efficient. A planetary bombardment intended as an extinction event should actually be carried out using as many lower-yield bolts as possible at as high a rate of fire as possible, with high-yield bolts reserved for built-up targets.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:29 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:A gigajoule bomb? Maybe several dozen.
Actually, that's an efficiency issue; yes an indiscrimate dropping of a blockbuster bomb might wreck a lot of buildings and only kill a few dozen people, wounding many more, but the dropping of a bunkerbuster into a command center or other hardened facility might kill hundreds, and knock out critical military assets, like command and control or destroy critical logistics.

Also what you said about the BDZ and effciency applies to Trek as well, most in particular General Order 24 of a "Taste of Armageddon" which does much the same thing per Scotty's dialog:

SCOTT: Open a channel, Lieutenant. This is the commander of the USS Enterprise. All cities and installations on Eminiar Seven have been located, identified, and fed into our fire-control system. In one hour and forty five minutes the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed. You have that long to surrender your hostages.

This with a vastly smaller ship than an ISD, which has far fewer weapons emplacements (2 main phaser banks, plus starboard and mid-ships weapons, 2 aft phasers, and at least 2 torpedo tubes one fore and one aft). Plus the targetting seems much more efficient, too given we have seen them hit objects on a planet's only a few meters wide from as much as tens of thousands of km away in "The Alternative Factor", "Who Mourns For Adonais?", and "The Apple".
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:46 pm

Anyone seen The Road? Agree with the premise or not, you see some convincing example of what goes on when the biosphere is screwed up. A lot of life disappears with time.

Has a BDZ ever said that life shall disappear as an immediate direct result of the bombardment btw?

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:57 pm

JMs, that is what I explained in the thread I linked to.
Add to the fires and the absence of help all the poisonous gases coming from chemical materials burning, such as plastics an other, more toxic materials, and you've got no relief for anyone, and in the scenario I had used, I had ignored all the MTLs and LTLs firing, each in the middle to low KT range.
InvaderSkooj wrote:You mean the one where you offered no proof to support your ideas, while dismissing scientific proof showing greater energy events having a lesser effect? Right.
No no, not the imaginary one in your head, the real one where I provided calculations, explanations of blanket fire, of fires expanding beyond the actual impact range with no one to put them out, of created firestorms from the bombardment, and not just 1 big localized impact, where the distribution of the effects will not be as widespread as a carpet bombardment, as the BDZ supposedly is...

And if you care to dispute my calculations, refute the poisonous fumes and raging, and all the other stuff you carefully ignored, why don't you go back to that thread and bring some valid points this time, instead of just ignoring the ones you don't like? :)

User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Tyralak » Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:28 pm

InvaderSkooj wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:I've had a similar argument with InvaderSkooj over at ASVS a few months ago, and my basic stance, which he was never able to disprove, was that 3 ISDs firing 1 or 2 HTL shots per second, at 1 MT per shot, could indeed destroy all life on an Earth-like planet within 24 hours.

The Caamas incident is in the same ballpark as TESB, and a bit higher then AotC and RotS as far as Firepower is concerned...

But yeah, what I noticed most was that in his first post, Leo1 described what he thought would happen, then stated he would never be back in the thread again... And guess what he did... :)
You mean the one where you offered no proof to support your ideas, while dismissing scientific proof showing greater energy events having a lesser effect? Right.
Whoa. You're alive. Where you been hiding, man?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: SW Firepower debate on SB.com

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:06 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Has a BDZ ever said that life shall disappear as an immediate direct result of the bombardment btw?
The Caamas BDZ incident indicates that the sapient and lower animal life almost al disappeared in the intial bombardment, but not completely:

"firestorm decimated all vegetation and animals and most of the sentient Caamasi"

But the poisonous clouds and other debris in the run-off would pollute the oceans, suggesting that the oceans not only survive the bombardment, but the lifeforms in it which would have to die as a result of trhe secondary effects post-bombardment.

The Nar Shaddaa bombardment also seems to go along those lines. Most people are killed in the bombardment, but mop-up ops have to be carried out later on amongst rubble and that blackened bodies would be visible, meaning no molten lava flowing or anything like that, and some structures, while wrecked, would also survive to be recognizable.
-Mike

Post Reply