Wikipedia: Star Trek versus Star Wars

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm

Huh, I don't see how you could misunderstand Sarli's words. He was still expanding upon the roughly distributed firepower idea, and looking at what would happen if 100 MT were roughly distributed over the surface of a world.

It's precisely what Sagan says: use plenty of low yield weapons, detonated over key industrial, urban or ecological zones, with a total of 100 MT, to cause wide spread damage at all levels: destruction of assets, poisoning of the biosphere, disruption of population centers and civilian services, etc. Etc.

None ever talked about detonating one single 100 MT.

It helps to read what Sagan actually said.

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:26 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Huh, I don't see how you could misunderstand Sarli's words. He was still expanding upon the roughly distributed firepower idea, and looking at what would happen if 100 MT were roughly distributed over the surface of a world.
No, I get it now, what he's suggesting is a piddly 0.018595555555555555555555555555556 joules over every kilometer of the Earths surface, even more pathetic than a single 100 MT device, so he's even MORE of a moron, my bad.

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

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:43 pm

WolfRitter wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Huh, I don't see how you could misunderstand Sarli's words. He was still expanding upon the roughly distributed firepower idea, and looking at what would happen if 100 MT were roughly distributed over the surface of a world.
No, I get it now, what he's suggesting is a piddly 0.018595555555555555555555555555556 joules over every kilometer of the Earths surface, even more pathetic than a single 100 MT device, so he's even MORE of a moron, my bad.
No, he's being quite clever. Distributed carefully, ladies and gentlemen, 100 megatons is quite enough to knock modern human civilization to its knees ecologically and economically.

Distributed reasonably cautiously, 400,000 megatons was more than sufficient to have a fair crack at turning humanity extinct - as Sarli was correct in noting.

Incidentally, lower-yield devices devastate a larger total area. In general, "effective" destruction vs surface targets goes by the 2/3 power of yield for large (i.e., nuclear) devices. Thus, multiple smaller devices are not in the least bit "more pathetic" than a single large device.

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:49 pm

Give me a reason why we should interpret that any other way than literal as in evenly distibute 100 MT over the planets surface?

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:21 am

WolfRitter wrote:Give me a reason why we should interpret that any other way than literal as in evenly distibute 100 MT over the planets surface?
Because that was what was actually said?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:33 am

WolfRitter wrote:Give me a reason why we should interpret that any other way than literal as in evenly distibute 100 MT over the planets surface?
Perhaps because he referenced the TTAPS paper that Sagan was a part of that specified the particulars?

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:31 am

2046 wrote:Perhaps because he referenced the TTAPS paper that Sagan was a part of that specified the particulars?
The one that has been refuted? You know, by the one guy who said that the Oil Fires would cause catastrophic damage to the global ecosystem for a considerable time, and didn't last but a couple weeks. Hell, Carl Sagan doesn't even support the TTAPS paper anymore.

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:33 am

l33telboi wrote:
WolfRitter wrote:Give me a reason why we should interpret that any other way than literal as in evenly distibute 100 MT over the planets surface?
Because that was what was actually said?
No he said it would only take 100MT spread evenly across the surface of the Earth, which comes to less than a single Joule/km.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:52 am

WolfRitter wrote:
2046 wrote:Perhaps because he referenced the TTAPS paper that Sagan was a part of that specified the particulars?
The one that has been refuted?
Critics /= refutation.
You know, by the one guy who said that the Oil Fires would cause catastrophic damage to the global ecosystem for a considerable time, and didn't last but a couple weeks.
An acknowledged error by Sagan.
Hell, Carl Sagan doesn't even support the TTAPS paper anymore.
Source? (Other than obituaries, mind you.)

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:32 am

2046 wrote:Critics /= refutation.
From the Oak Ridge National Laboratory translation (ORNL-TR-2793) of Civil Defense. Second Edition (500,000 copies), Moscow, 1970, by Egorov, Shlyakhov, and Alabin, we read: "Fires do not occur in zones of complete destruction . . . that are characterized by an overpressure exceeding 0.5 kg/cm2 [- 7 psi]., because rubble is scattered and covers the burning structures. As a result the rubble only smolders, and fires as such do not occur."

Even if such firestorms were created the TTAPS report does not explain how the smoke and dust particles would remain in the atmosphere for weeks and normal meterological processes arent even factored into the study.

Studies of the discharge rates of manmade and natural smoke and observations of the average amounts of smoke found in the atmosphere, done prior to and since the promulgation of the nuclear winter theory, have shown that smoke particles have an average residence time of one week or less. The average residence time of water vapor is a little longer than a week. The amount of atmospheric water vapor in tons, in the northern latitudes vastly exceeds the 225 million tons of smoke postulated by Sagan and his associates by a factor of a minimum of ten thousand. It is fairly obvious that in seven to ten days, which is before the theoretical initiation of the widespread cooling effect, an amount of water vastly greater than the weight of smoke generated by the nuclear exchange, will rain out of the atmosphere and in doing so, will have an obviously significant cleansing effect.

Then let's add in that with the fact that smoke and dust particles injected into the atmosphere spontaneously create rain conditions, by themselves being the locus around which water molecules coalesce until they form rain droplets. Records show that within hours after the bombing of Hiroshima, black rain began to fall.

The TTAPS study also relies on population centers being the targets, which they are not, that would be the missiles and airbases of the other guy. Admittedly some will be close to metropolis' but modern missiles don't use the multimegaton warheads of the 50's and 60's instead focusing on the more accurate MIRVs.

Regardless, this is highly unorthodox for a logical debate, you're the one arguing the positive and I the negative and thus it's your job to prove Nuclear Winter, as it would be adhering to the burden of proof.
Source? (Other than obituaries, mind you.)
Sorry, I was a bit erroneous

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:54 pm

I thought your point was that Sarli was a moron (as you so eloquently put it)? Now you think that refuting what Carl Sagan said somehow makes Sarli a moron? Sarli even admitted that the exact figures might be false. The point he had however was something vastly different then what you initially claimed it to be. Quoting someone out of context and then even strawmanning the argument just so you can claim a weak victory is pathetic.

I just don't understand the sheer audacity of some people. I mean look yourself in the mirror Schatten. Some of the claims i've seen you make would make you a moron by your own standards (solid objects couldn't penetrate shields because they are frequency based, anyone?), yet you think you somehow have the right to point fingers and make statements like that? If you did something like that in the real world, you'd very quickly find a fist lodged in your mouth.

But then, you'd never really have the actual guts to do that in real life, would you?

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

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:11 pm

l33telboi wrote:But then, you'd never really have the actual guts to do that in real life, would you?
No baiting, please.

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:22 pm

l33telboi wrote:I thought your point was that Sarli was a moron (as you so eloquently put it)? Now you think that refuting what Carl Sagan said somehow makes Sarli a moron? Sarli even admitted that the exact figures might be false. The point he had however was something vastly different then what you initially claimed it to be. Quoting someone out of context and then even strawmanning the argument just so you can claim a weak victory is pathetic.
Show how it's a strawman and quoted out of context; he said, you could wipe out humanity by evenly distributing a total of 100 MT across the entirety of the planet. Darkstar attempted to use Sarli's use of the TTAPS papers as evidence that we should interpret the statement as anything but literal.
I just don't understand the sheer audacity of some people. I mean look yourself in the mirror Schatten.
I suggest you do the same L33tel, you're doing those backhanded dishonest insults that Rabid Trekkies are known for, at least us 'Rabid Warsies' are honest when we insult someone.
Some of the claims i've seen you make would make you a moron by your own standards (solid objects couldn't penetrate shields because they are frequency based, anyone?), yet you think you somehow have the right to point fingers and make statements like that?
WTF!? Where's this!?
If you did something like that in the real world, you'd very quickly find a fist lodged in your mouth.
And the offender would be quickly handing me a nice amount of cash.
But then, you'd never really have the actual guts to do that in real life, would you?
Tsk, Tsk, you've been warned multiple times about this.

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 pm

WolfRitter wrote:Show how it's a strawman and quoted out of context;
Actually, i'll do you one better. I'll show why the part i quoted just now is doding the point and then i'll show you why what initially said was a strawman and a quote out of context.

Even if the what you say about Sagan is true, it doesn't have any baring on Sarli. Why? Because he simply relied on the research another person made. If that's proven wrong later, it's hardly Sarli's fault. You yourself rely on what other people write all the time, the copy/paste job you just did shows that.

However, to adress the issue of strawman and out of context. I think the quote i provided from Sarli earlier actually answered that for me. He is not talking about an even distribution of 100MT of energy (which you are claiming he is), he's talking about a nuclear exchange where major cities are targeted and he says that 100MT is not necessarely the correct figure.
I suggest you do the same L33tel, you're doing those backhanded dishonest insults that Rabid Trekkies are known for,
I've told you once already Shatten. If i felt the pressing need to flame you properly, i would. I sometimes actually do that to people on SB. Anyone who knows me also knows that's true. So your claims to the opposite are quite impotent. But as i see it, flaming you is like shouting at a mosquito, it just does no good and the mosquito just wouldn't get it.

And as for calling me a Trekkie? Well, like earlier, anyone who knows me even a bit knows the validity of that claim. Ask me how much of Trek i've actually seen? A Trekkie would actually have to have seen a lot, right? One might even say that a Trekkie would've had to see it all? Now go look up some threads where Trek is pitted against something that isn't Starwars.
WTF!? Where's this!?
I believe it was on SDN, one of your many glorious insights.
And the offender would be quickly handing me a nice amount of cash.
You think that solves the underlying problem? Or that this reply actually acknowledges and deals with what i just said? "Then he'll give me money"?

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:13 pm

l33telboi wrote:
WolfRitter wrote:Actually, i'll do you one better. I'll show why the part i quoted just now is doding the point and then i'll show you why what initially said was a strawman and a quote out of context.
Fire away.
Even if the what you say about Sagan is true, it doesn't have any baring on Sarli. Why? Because he simply relied on the research another person made. If that's proven wrong later, it's hardly Sarli's fault. You yourself rely on what other people write all the time, the copy/paste job you just did shows that.
It's his job to doublecheck his sources and he is held responsible for not doing so.
However, to adress the issue of strawman and out of context. I think the quote i provided from Sarli earlier actually answered that for me. He is not talking about an even distribution of 100MT of energy (which you are claiming he is), he's talking about a nuclear exchange where major cities are targeted and he says that 100MT is not necessarely the correct figure.
Even if we were to hit every square kilometer with 100 MT devices it does not assure humanities destruction, there were a number of bunkers built for just such an event.
I've told you once already Shatten. If i felt the pressing need to flame you properly, i would. I sometimes actually do that to people on SB. Anyone who knows me also knows that's true. So your claims to the opposite are quite impotent. But as i see it, flaming you is like shouting at a mosquito, it just does no good and the mosquito just wouldn't get it.
There they are again, I'm starting to think you're a computer program.
And as for calling me a Trekkie? Well, like earlier, anyone who knows me even a bit knows the validity of that claim. Ask me how much of Trek i've actually seen? A Trekkie would actually have to have seen a lot, right? One might even say that a Trekkie would've had to see it all? Now go look up some threads where Trek is pitted against something that isn't Starwars.
Not so, trekkie is a name for fans of Trek who argue from that side in the Vs Debate.
I believe it was on SDN, one of your many glorious insights.
I notice you don't have a link.
You think that solves the underlying problem? Or that this reply actually acknowledges and deals with what i just said? "Then he'll give me money"?
You act like I should care, I'm an asshole and freely admit it, why don't you look at the SDN Thread where Invictus Chicken declared to the whole board he joined the Catholic Church, you act like my being an asshole is some huge secret I'm trying to keep, like I said, I'm honest, the same can't be said for you.

Post Reply