Opecoiler wrote:I simply say that the Jem'hadar subspace minefield was not very effective, as both the minefield and Jem'hadar attacks caused less than one casualty a day.
Neither are they very effective as pens. But that's probably because they're not meant to be used as pens.
Seeing how the mines work, they are probably terror weapons, meant to degrade morale. Because that is what they seem to do. They're not area denial weapons, because they clearly don't do that.
And as terror weapons, they work. How do you think you'd feel if you knew you're walking around in a place where there are invisible bombs that can suddely materialize and blow you to bits? How do you think you'll feel after you've been sitting in such a field for a weak, seeing your friends blow up, and knowing that you might be next?
And yet whether or not the people at SDN consider that example valid or not has nothing to do with this topic. There is no mention of anything related to Star Wars in the OP. Sorry, still a red herring.
Nope, the rules that should be set in place when debating stuff like this are very much a part of this thread, and other threads as well. You use the same method of analysis and quantification for both sides.
You can try to cover up the double-standard you're performing by crying red herring over and over again, but it's still very much there.
The fact is that as consequences stated, there are hurdles towards widebeams that can be explained with SoD-power consumption
What? That's most certainly not something you can argue, unless you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Let me explain. First you argue that the range will be limited because the energy that was in the narrow beam is now spread over a much wider area. Then you also argue that the weapon draws more energy this way. Well, I'm afraid those two things are mutually exclusive. If you pump more energy into the widebeam setting, then you're also going to have more energy at the targeted area, not the same energy you normally get in a phaser blast.
Either you get a phaser on widebeam that is as effective as normal phasers, but eat a lot more power, or you get a phaser that is less effective, but eats as much power as a normal beam.
the need to gauge the exact beam spread, and so on.
This certainly doesn't seem to be a big problem or a complicated procedure, if we go by what's seen in the show.
A similar type of example can be found with modern forces and nerve gas-the need to put on NBC gear, large-scale ethicial concerns, and so on.
You're comparing wide-beam setting, something that can be safely set to stun people, to nervegas? Touché.
Yeah, nervegas has quite a few ethical concerns. But a non-lethal weapon? Not so much. And I can't seem to recall them putting on NBC gear everytime they fire the thing. I can't even find a reason for why that would be remotely logical.
If you continue to claim the use of widebeam despite it not being used so many times when it would have been useful, I can do the same with nerve gas.
Why not just compare widebeam setting to nukes while you're at it? Or perhaps you'd like to skip right to comparing it to child-molesters with AIDS?
But no, you can't invent arbitrary reasons (especially not when they're as rediculous as the one you just made) and then think they're valid counters.
576 times as much energy or 576 times weaker is hardly a bit.
Widebeam makes the beam flat and wide, it won't have a larger circular diameter. So the phaser on widebeam doesn't go from tiny circle to big circle, as is assumed in the figures you're referring to. It goes from tiny circle to a beam that is wider, but equal in height as the original beam. As such the area affected is smaller then what that figure assumes.
If I noticed this after quickly glancing at it, you'd think that someone that actually uses this figure in a debate, and has undoubteldy checked the figure, would also have noticed. No?
Yes, stun is enough to incapacitate a soldier. However, it is not enough to destroy whatever substantial cover he may be behind-which there is plenty of in a jungle.
You're assuming they will always be perfectly behind cover when shot at? Please, I've seen so many people tell this to you on SB already that you should've gotten it by now - you don't jinx a scenario in your favor, by arbitrary assuming the side you want to win gets lucky and has all the odds in his favor. Like assuming that whenever someone is fired on, he's actually behind cover.
Besides, if they're behind cover, then I very much doubt that anything but a very hefty amount of energy will do any good. And you won't exactly be doing any better with a rifle if the person you're firing on is hiding behind a heap of rocks.
Did you miss that soldiers use cover whenever possible?
Yeah, I probably missed it because you only said that in this very post. I find it quite difficult to respond to things you're going to be saying in the future, see.
But it's a good point, isn't it? Because in real war, soldiers always, with 100% success, use cover whenever they're fired on. As such, weapons fire from rifles have never yet wounded or killed so much as a single person. Right?
Realize that cover is no argument here, since it works just as well against modern weapons as it does against phasers.
And assuming the ones being fired on is somehow always behind cover when fired on, is as rediculous as assuming that rifles are completly inneffective for the very same reason.
No, I'm simply pointing out physics.
Physics? Explain to me how physics say that we can assume UFP personel will somehow fire their phasers on a too-wide setting for what they wanted?
Nitpicking.
I don't even want to guess where someone asking another person to quantify and thus validify his argument is considered "Nitpicking".
In fact, do you find anything wrong about consequences' analysis?
Honestly, I thought the problem would be as plain as day.
If the victim is behind physical cover, then it is telling. It certainly is telling to the phaser's power supply.
Yes, let's assume that whoever they're shooting at is always perfectly concealed behind cover. That makes widebeam completly ineffective, doesn't it? But wait, that also makes modern rifles completly ineffective, because if someone is behind cover and you shoot at them, they won't die.
I guess that fits in with what we know from real life, doesn't it. I mean we've yet to have a single person ever die from a gunshot wound. The people being fired on is always behind cover.
Brilliant.