The Lost Scrolls: Uber Firepower calculated for Star Wars

[watchdog]

Personally I think everyone is reading to much into the opening crawl, a seperate source says the construction on #2 started immedeatly after the first ones destruction, a span of four years between ANH and ROTJ. MW's claim can be taken any way you want as he did not give an actuall quote from the book. I am interested in looking up this info from the book, if I remember it I'll check the library for a copy. I will also try to remember to look up the construction quote in the chronology as well. But I dont buy the construction in 6 months time at all.

[Praeothmin]

It's the same case with the construction of the second Death Star. We know that it has begun in secret. But because present perfect simple was used, we can conclude, that the construction is not finished yet. But because the verb in that sentence was not construction but begin, we know that the beginning of the construction is over. The beginning of the construction of the Death Star is in the past and because a beginning is a zero time event, it is already completed. Only the construction is not completed yet.

We don't know, how long ago the beginning of the construction was. The used tense doesn't answer that question. It can be two years ago or twenty years ago.

No, since the scrawl said:
"Had begun", it means it that the construction of the DS II has been started very recently.
When you want to convey a sense of some time having passed, of the event your talking about having started some time ago, like for example "two years ago", you would not, in normal use, only say:
"Has begun".
You would say something like:
"had begun", which implies the beginning taking place some time ago.


And as for my "million" thingy, I got that from ANH, where it states that the Empire controls 1 million systems at the start of the movie (and not 1 million worlds as I had originally stated).
I wasn't talking about the number of stars in the SW galaxy...
Sorry for my lack of clearness... :)

[watchdog]

Well I couldn't find a copy of Shadows at the library, so I found a copy at the book store. The first mention of the Death Star that I found in the book (page 103, paperback) says;

While the Emperor had not yet spoken of it directly, the construction of the new and more powerful Death Star was behind schedule. Those in charge offered many excuses-material, workers, constantly changing plans-and the Emperor was growing impatient. Vader was fairly certain that it would be only a matter of time before the Emperor sent him to oversee the lagging project.

The time frame for the events in this book is 3.5 A.B.Y (3 1/2 years after battle Yavin) according to the chronology, ROTJ happens at 4 A.B.Y. At 3 A.B.Y is the first mention in the chronology of the Death Star construction;

Against all odds, the Alliance pressed on. mon Mothma heard rumors of a second, even larger Death Star under construction around the Sancuary Moon of Endor. Gathering concrete information on the battle station became a top priority.

All of this suggests that the DS II was under construction for at least a year prior to the movie.
The book never says it in so many words, but the immedeate aftermath of the destruction of the first Death Star has Palpatine killing Bevel Lemelisk who has to work harder on the next design, it only hints that construction began immedeatly after.

[Who is like God arbour]

Personally I think everyone is reading to much into the opening crawl [...]

I have another opinion. The opening crawl is highest canon.

• If it would outright say, that the construction of the Death Star has begun only recently, that would be canon.
• If it would outright say that the construction of the Death Star has begun many years ago, that would be canon.
• If it would only say that the construction of the Death Star has begun in the past but is not finished yet, the exact time, the construction has started is not codified by the opening crawl.

In the first two alternatives, a debate wouldn't be allowed. But if it is let open, when exactly the construction of the Death Star has begun, it is open to a debate. Such a gap could be closed by lower canon. But the lower canon has to give chapter for a statement. If the construction of the first Death Star has last nearly twenty years, it should explain, how the second Death Star could be finished in nearly six months. It should explain, why from the beginning not more Death Stars were planned although a single Death Star would be insignificant in a whole galaxy.

It's the same case with the construction of the second Death Star. We know that it has begun in secret. But because present perfect simple was used, we can conclude, that the construction is not finished yet. But because the verb in that sentence was not construction but begin, we know that the beginning of the construction is over. The beginning of the construction of the Death Star is in the past and because a beginning is a zero time event, it is already completed. Only the construction is not completed yet.

We don't know, how long ago the beginning of the construction was. The used tense doesn't answer that question. It can be two years ago or twenty years ago.

No, since the scrawl said:
"Had begun", it means it that the construction of the DS II has been started very recently.
When you want to convey a sense of some time having passed, of the event your talking about having started some time ago, like for example "two years ago", you would not, in normal use, only say:
"Has begun".
You would say something like:
"had begun", which implies the beginning taking place some time ago.

The opening crawl hasn't said >> had begun << but >> has begun <<.

And maybe you could give a reason for your opinion for a change.

As far as my understanding from English grammar goes - it would be definitely wrong to say >> Had begun <<.
That would be past perfect, that refers to an event that has completed before another past action. But the construction of the second Death Star has not been finished nor was there another past action between the finishing of the construction of the Death Star and the beginning of the film.

If you want to continue that debate, you should begin to consider the definitions of tenses and try to argue with them. I'm not saying, that I have to be right and you have to be wrong. But you don't give any reasons for your opinion. You don't explain your opinion. You only give it. And maybe in the end, you are right. But if I can't understand why, this debate would be useless.

Well I couldn't find a copy of Shadows at the library, so I found a copy at the book store. The first mention of the Death Star that I found in the book (page 103, paperback) says;

While the Emperor had not yet spoken of it directly, the construction of the new and more powerful Death Star was behind schedule. Those in charge offered many excuses-material, workers, constantly changing plans-and the Emperor was growing impatient. Vader was fairly certain that it would be only a matter of time before the Emperor sent him to oversee the lagging project.

The time frame for the events in this book is 3.5 A.B.Y (3 1/2 years after battle Yavin) according to the chronology, ROTJ happens at 4 A.B.Y. At 3 A.B.Y is the first mention in the chronology of the Death Star construction;

Against all odds, the Alliance pressed on. mon Mothma heard rumors of a second, even larger Death Star under construction around the Sancuary Moon of Endor. Gathering concrete information on the battle station became a top priority.

All of this suggests that the DS II was under construction for at least a year prior to the movie.
The book never says it in so many words, but the immedeate aftermath of the destruction of the first Death Star has Palpatine killing Bevel Lemelisk who has to work harder on the next design, it only hints that construction began immedeatly after.

These quotes are not revealing because they don't say when the construction of the second Death Star has begun nor how long they have already build on it at the time the novel - from which these quotes are - is set.
All we can learn from these quotes is - as you say it yourself - that the Death Star was under construction for at least an half year prior to >> Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi <<. But it clearly contradict the claim from Mr. Wrong, that the second Death Star was build in only six months.

[Mr. Oragahn]

No, since the scrawl said:
"Had begun", it means it that the construction of the DS II has been started very recently.
When you want to convey a sense of some time having passed, of the event your talking about having started some time ago, like for example "two years ago", you would not, in normal use, only say:
"Has begun".
You would say something like:
"had begun", which implies the beginning taking place some time ago.

The opening crawl hasn't said >> had begun << but >> has begun <<.

And maybe you could give a reason for your opinion for a change.

As far as my understanding from English grammar goes - it would be definitely wrong to say >> Had begun <<.
That would be past perfect, that refers to an event that has completed before another past action. But the construction of the second Death Star has not been finished nor was there another past action between the finishing of the construction of the Death Star and the beginning of the film.

If you want to continue that debate, you should begin to consider the definitions of tenses and try to argue with them. I'm not saying, that I have to be right and you have to be wrong. But you don't give any reasons for your opinion. You don't explain your opinion. You only give it. And maybe in the end, you are right. But if I can't understand why, this debate would be useless.

Prat has a point. Though he made a typo (the second part of his sentence his correct), "had begun" should have been used, if you were correct.

"Past Simple - Past Simple expresses an action or situation that was started and finished in the past. Most past simple verbs end in -ed. The others have irregular past tense forms and must be learned ("I went")."

In our case, what would have been started, and is now finished, is the beginning of the construction.

Basically, it would mean "the beginning of the construction is finished". It would not mean that the construction itself has ended.

[Praeothmin]

Thanks Oragahn... :)

W.I.L.G.A, I apologize if I seemed not to explain my line of reasoning, because I thought I had.

As Oragahn said, the words "Has Begun" qualifies exactly this:
The beginning of the second DS' construction, not the construction itself.

If the "beginning" phase had been over, and we were now talking about actual construction, the scroll would have used "Had Begun" instead of "Has Begun".

That is what I meant.
I hope this clarifies things... :)

[Who is like God arbour]

Praeothmin has a point. Though he made a typo (the second part of his sentence his correct), "had begun" should have been used, if you were correct.

"Past Simple - Past Simple expresses an action or situation that was started and finished in the past. Most past simple verbs end in -ed. The others have irregular past tense forms and must be learned ("I went")."

In our case, what would have been started, and is now finished, is the beginning of the construction.

Basically, it would mean "the beginning of the construction is finished". It would not mean that the construction itself has ended.

I don't understand, what you are trying to say.
>> had begun << is not past simple. As yourself said, past simple is formed by adding -ed or -d to the verb's plain form or, if verbs form their preterites irregularly, by their irregular past tense form. But if the past tense of the auxiliary verb >> have << [had] with the past participle is combined, it is past perfect. If that would have been used in the opening crawl, it would mean, that the construction would be finished. Because past perfect is used to refer to an event that has completed before another past completed action.

• • • In the sentence >> The blind man, who knew that he had risen, motioned him to sit down again << , >> he had risen << is an example of past perfect. It refers to an event (someone rises from his seat), which takes place before another event (the blind man notices the fact that the other has risen). Since that second event (the blind man's taking notice) is itself a past event and the past tense is used to refer to it (>> the blind man knew <<), the pluperfect is needed to make it clear that the first event (someone rises) has taken place even earlier in the past.

In the sentence >> Little does Luke know that the GALACTIC EMPIRE had secretly begun construction on a new armored space station even more powerful than the first dreaded Death Star. << are also two events: the beginning of the construction as a zero time event and the construction itself. If in the opening crawl would indeed have been written >> had begun <<, we would have to assume, that the construction itself is also already a past completed event. But because the construction is still ongoing, that would be wrong. The construction is not a completed past event.

That's why present perfect was used in the opening crawl. It's used to express an past action that has been completed with respect to the present, while the resulting state is in the present.

• • • For example, "I have gone to the cinema" implies that the subject has completed a certain action (this is what "gone" relates), but that the subject is, in a sense, "holding" or "possessing" that completed action in the present time (this is what "have" relates). In other words, the subject is in a current state (now), and a past action that the subject has done or a past state that the subject has been in, is being referred to from the current state of the subject, which is the present time. This differs from the simple past tense, i.e., "I went to the cinema", which implies only that an action happened, with the subject having no relationship at all to the present.
      
      Another example:
      
      • • The boy saw the car. (Emphasis is on the fact that the boy saw the car.)
          
          The boy has seen the car. (Emphasis is on the present state of the boy, resulting from the fact that he saw the car.)

The still ongoing construction is in the present while the beginning of it is in the past. The emphasis is on the present state, namely the ongoing construction, resulting from the fact, that it was begun (secretly). The question, how long ago the construction has begun (or how long ago the boy has seen the car) is not answered. It could have been only recently or already a long time ago.

Thanks Oragahn... :)

W.I.L.G.A, I apologize if I seemed not to explain my line of reasoning, because I thought I had.

As Oragahn said, the words "Has Begun" qualifies exactly this:
The beginning of the second DS' construction, not the construction itself.

If the "beginning" phase had been over, and we were now talking about actual construction, the scroll would have used "Had Begun" instead of "Has Begun".

That is what I meant.
I hope this clarifies things... :)

I'm sorry to say, that I sill think, that you and Mr. Oragahn are wrong. See above, why I think that.

And yes, the beginning of the construction is completed. As a zero time event (and not a phase) it has to be completed. But the construction is not completed yet. It is still ongoing. That's why it would be wrong to set it in the past. Using past perfect would do that.

You have to consider that, if you use a form of the auxiliary verb >> have << or >> be << in conjunction with the verb, you have usually two events which are connected somehow. That's not really a tense but the aspect.

The aspect can differ although the described events are in the same tense: >> I swim << and >> I am swimming << are both a present tense although they have differents aspects.

>> I swam << or >> I was swimming << or >> I have swum << or >> I had swum << are all in the past but have all different aspects.

They are refered to from another event, that can be in the same tense or in another tense. Usually the tense of both events are regarded as the tense from which one refers to the other event.

That's why present perfect is regarded a present although the second event is a past event. The first event, that from which one refers to the second event, is present.

Due to the aspect both events can be past events and one is even able to express an order in the events: Something had happened in the past before something other happened in the past.

• • • • Insofar the Wikipedia is in some articles not entirely correct with the usage of some linguistic terms as far as they don't always differ between tenses and aspects.

[Praeothmin]

"Had risen" implies the action of one having rised up.
"Had begun" implies the action of something having been started.
Your example is flawed, W.I.L.G.A.

To consider, as you say, that the DS II's construction was already over, then the scroll would need to say "Had constructed", which would imply that the construction was done in the past an was now over.

"Had begun" only refers to the verb "to begin", and as such, means just that:
The beginning stage of something is over, which by no way implies that the thing itself is finished.

[Who is like God arbour]

It seems to me, that you still don't understand the grammatical aspects.

In linguistics, the grammatical aspects of a verb defines the temporal flow (or lack thereof) in the described event or state. For example, in English the difference between I swim and I am swimming is a difference of aspect.

According to one prevalent account, the English tense system has only two basic times, present and past. No primitive future tense exists in English; the futurity of an event is expressed through the use of the auxiliary verbs »will« and »shall«, by use of a present form, as in »tomorrow we go to Newark«, or by some other means. Present and past, in contrast, can be expressed using direct modifications of the verb, which may be modified further by the progressive aspect(also called the continuous aspect), the perfect aspect (also called the completed aspect), or both. Each tense is named according to its combination of aspects and time. These two aspects are also referred to as BE + ING (for the first) and as HAVE +EN (for the second). Although a little unwieldy, such tags allow us to avoid the suggestion that uses of the aspect BE + ING always have a »progressive« or »continuous« meaning, which they do not.

The perfect aspect is a grammatical aspect that refers to a state resulting from a previous action (also described as a previous action with relevance to a particular time, or a previous action viewed from the perspective of a later time).

For example, »I have eaten lunch« implies both that a previous action happened (»I ate lunch«) and that a current state resulted ( »I am full«). This differs from the simple »I ate lunch«, which implies only that an action happened, with no relevance to the present. The form »I have eaten« is referred to as a present perfect, meaning present tense, perfect aspect. (It is considered present tense instead of a past tense because the resulting state is in the present.)

While the present perfect is used to refer to an event that has been completed with respect to the present, the past perfect is used to refer to an event that has completed before another past action. The difference is not the tense but the aspect. In both cases, the event, to which one refers, is in the past. But using present perfect, one refers to that event from a present point of view at which the event is somehow still relevant while using past perfect, one refers to an event that has been completed before another past event has happened.

If in the opening crawl would have been written »the Empire had begun construction on the space station«, the beginning of the construction would be in the past as if in it would have been written »the Empire has begun construction on the space station«. The difference is, that in the first case, one would expect another completed past event, the construction to which the beginning was refered, while in the second case, the usage of present perfect indicates, that there is no other completed event between the beginning of the construction and the beginning of the film. That's why we know - only from the opening crawl and without seeing the movie first - that the construction is not finished yet.

And because the beginning of the construction is not the construction itself, we know, because the beginning has happened secret, that the ongoing construction doesn't have to be secret anymore.

• • • • I don't know, how I shall explain it otherwise. The problem is, that you still don't explain your opinion.
        
        All what happened in the past is usually completed. That the beginning is set in the past, is indisputable and that as a zero time event it is completed, is also indisputable. But that is the case, regardless if one use present perfect or past perfect. The beginning is with both aspects completed in the past.
        But in one case, it is completed before another past event and in the other case, it is completed but still relevant in the present which is why it is refered to from a present view point.
        Insofar, »had begun« refers not only to the verb begin, it is referd to from another past event, while »has begun« is referd to from another present event.
        
        If you want to continue that debate, you should begin, as I have already said, to explain your thoughts and reasonings. Explain for example, why the usage of a certain tense or aspect would imply something. Do not only say, that A implies B, but why A implies B. For that, you have to use the definitions of tenses and aspects. I can't understand what you are trying to say, if you don't explain it properly.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It seems to me, that you still don't understand the grammatical aspects.

In linguistics, the grammatical aspects of a verb defines the temporal flow (or lack thereof) in the described event or state. For example, in English the difference between I swim and I am swimming is a difference of aspect.

According to one prevalent account, the English tense system has only two basic times, present and past. No primitive future tense exists in English; the futurity of an event is expressed through the use of the auxiliary verbs »will« and »shall«, by use of a present form, as in »tomorrow we go to Newark«, or by some other means. Present and past, in contrast, can be expressed using direct modifications of the verb, which may be modified further by the progressive aspect(also called the continuous aspect), the perfect aspect (also called the completed aspect), or both. Each tense is named according to its combination of aspects and time. These two aspects are also referred to as BE + ING (for the first) and as HAVE +EN (for the second). Although a little unwieldy, such tags allow us to avoid the suggestion that uses of the aspect BE + ING always have a »progressive« or »continuous« meaning, which they do not.

The perfect aspect is a grammatical aspect that refers to a state resulting from a previous action (also described as a previous action with relevance to a particular time, or a previous action viewed from the perspective of a later time).

For example, »I have eaten lunch« implies both that a previous action happened (»I ate lunch«) and that a current state resulted ( »I am full«). This differs from the simple »I ate lunch«, which implies only that an action happened, with no relevance to the present. The form »I have eaten« is referred to as a present perfect, meaning present tense, perfect aspect. (It is considered present tense instead of a past tense because the resulting state is in the present.)

While the present perfect is used to refer to an event that has been completed with respect to the present, the past perfect is used to refer to an event that has completed before another past action. The difference is not the tense but the aspect. In both cases, the event, to which one refers, is in the past. But using present perfect, one refers to that event from a present point of view at which the event is somehow still relevant while using past perfect, one refers to an event that has been completed before another past event has happened.

If in the opening crawl would have been written »the Empire had begun construction on the space station«, the beginning of the construction would be in the past as if in it would have been written »the Empire has begun construction on the space station«. The difference is, that in the first case, one would expect another completed past event, the construction to which the beginning was refered, while in the second case, the usage of present perfect indicates, that there is no other completed event between the beginning of the construction and the beginning of the film. That's why we know - only from the opening crawl and without seeing the movie first - that the construction is not finished yet.

And because the beginning of the construction is not the construction itself, we know, because the beginning has happened secret, that the ongoing construction doesn't have to be secret anymore.

• • • • I don't know, how I shall explain it otherwise. The problem is, that you still don't explain your opinion.
        
        All what happened in the past is usually completed. That the beginning is set in the past, is indisputable and that as a zero time event it is completed, is also indisputable. But that is the case, regardless if one use present perfect or past perfect. The beginning is with both aspects completed in the past.
        But in one case, it is completed before another past event and in the other case, it is completed but still relevant in the present which is why it is refered to from a present view point.
        Insofar, »had begun« refers not only to the verb begin, it is referd to from another past event, while »has begun« is referd to from another present event.
        
        If you want to continue that debate, you should begin, as I have already said, to explain your thoughts and reasonings. Explain for example, why the usage of a certain tense or aspect would imply something. Do not only say, that A implies B, but why A implies B. For that, you have to use the definitions of tenses and aspects. I can't understand what you are trying to say, if you don't explain it properly.

I think we understand the grammatical value of tenses and verbs quite fine.

This is going nowhere, and as such, I suggest we just leave it at that. Especially since it's a complete side track to the original topic.

Talking about original subject, here's some "new" stuff.


After conceding that he invented so many asteroid vapourizations necessary to the wank him and his pals admire so much, Poe has decided to return and open another joke thread, called this time Mythbusters: 200GT Turbolasers, 100% Phaser Accuracy, and since the turbolaser part is relevant to the thread I started (I leave the Trek stuff to others, as I'm not qualified to deal with that), let's see what he says:

The Claim:

The 200 GT turbolaser claim was invented by the ICS! Before the ICS was published, Warsies never claimed 200 GT! Waaaaa!!

Well, breaking news: even if it predated the ICS, it doesn't change much to the nature of the claim. Poe's logic is as much absurd as one claiming that one religion is just better because it's 100 years older or so.

In the end, it's still the same BS.

From: Marti...@aol.com (SirNitram)
Newsgroups: alt.startrek.vs.starwars
Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships
Date: 13 Jul 2001

Yea, I suppose it's debatable how many orders of magnitude more effective a single HTL bolt is than a full Phaser blast from a GCS. We have the calc's. A single HTL blast is measured in gigatons, and is NOT dependent on the target. So, while Phaser's drop their efficiency to a few megawatt laser on armor, the TL is still going strong.

At that point, you notice that gigatons is still pretty much vague.
Not trying to debunk the idea that the super duper gigaton claim is old, but just showing that minor gigaton claims are different than 200 GT or more. It's very easy to ignore the difference of two orders of magnitude.

From: "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org>
Subject: Re: [calc] Alternate Turbolaser calcs
Date: 1999/07/04

No arguments here. After all:

1e38 J for DS blast x 2 for Imperial starfleet: 2e38 J / 1e7 for each ship: 1e31 J / 200 for each weapon: 5e28 J / 4e9 for TNT tons: 1.25e13 MT / 1e12 for exatons: 12.5 ET

Thus, even if the recoil from a TL bolt was 999 gigatons (the max it could be before being in the "teraton range") it would still deliver less than 0.000008% of its energy as KE. Obviously, other warships would worry far more about the thermal/ray properties of the bolt than the inconsequential gigatons of KE, thus naming the shield that protects against them a "ray shield."

Nothing new here, this is the same extremely disputable interpretation of one of the film's bits of dialogue, mixed to the everlasting superlaser downscaling argument.

Moving on.

From: x...@iafrica.com (Michael January)
Subject: [calcs] Further to BDZ
Date: 1999/07/11

Edam has been insisting that a significant portion of the energy required in a BDZ comes from an ISD's fighter and bomber complement, and missiles launched from the ISD, rather than the ISD's 'beam weapons' or turbolasers.

Even back then, I'd have been siding with January, on the point that missiles would not be the most efficient and destructive weapons. Their yield might exceed that of a single heavy bolt, but their limited numbers would likely be their downfall.

The truth is that this January guy gets no credit. He's arguing against a claim, Edam's, which was absurd. What's the interest in claiming the wanked out BDZ could be achieved by fighters and bombers instead of capital ships?
In all cases, it would only make thing worse.

Unless Edam's words were distorded, and he meant fighters and bombers were used to enforce orbital and air domination, not to slag the surface of a whole planet.

Otherwise, he just tried to find a middle ground, which required the production of even more far fetched premises.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that if current power assumptions are used:-

10 MT for a proton torpedo
60 gigajoules for a fighters laser-cannons
500 megatons for a capital ships concussion missiles

and these weapons were fired continuously for a 24 hour period, they would contribute less than 0.001% of the energy required to do what a BDZ operation demands.

Let's notice that since then, AOTC has finely shown that even the top notch ship of the most appraised bounty hunter of the moment had weapons barely reaching the low gigajoule range (high end), and actually pretty much sitting in the megajoule range.

Yes, by the way, that is movie evidence.
Tough cookie. I guess then by this token, the ISDs are not capable of the BDZ this guy's been dreaming of.

If however, we accept Edam's position that these weapons contribute a significant portion of the energy, then we can do the following. A BDZ demands a minimum of about 5.3e27 Joules to be injected. This will raise the temperature of 30% of a 20km crust to the melting point of Iron, but not enough to melt it, let alone to melt rock, not iron.

If proton torpedoes (or other bombs fired by TIE bombers) contributed 10% of this energy (5.3e26 Joules), then the 12 TIE bombers would have to fire TWO MILLION missiles of about 122 gigatons each during the BDZ operation.
If the laser cannons on the 72 fighters (including the bombers) contributed a further 10%, then this would require 12.5 MILLION weapons firings of 5100 megatons per shot.

If an ISD carried 1000 missiles, and these contributed 10% to the BDZ, then each missile would have to have a warhead yield of 126 TERATONS.

That still leaves the turbolasers to do 70% of the job, which means that individually, each turbolaser is still 146 GIGATONS, and an ISD would have to have 200 of them fire continuously for 24 hours to finish the job.

Personally, I am quite happy to accept that a TIE delivers 5.1 gigatons per shot of it's laser cannons, and that a proton torpedo is 122 gigatons, and 12 TIE Bombers between them carry two million such missiles.

Personally, I'm totally saddened that some poor soul could ever pretend with a straight face that TIEs have gigatons of firepower, and be quoted years later as one would quote a prophet to show that the Koran... pardon, the ICS is right.

Of course, the parallels with religion are all the more easy to pick, they literally abound. Their devotion to ICS "evidence" is just as pityful and reeks of pure bigotry.

This also seems to balance out nicely

Turbolaser 146 Gigatons
One fighter, per shot 5.1 Gigatons
Proton Torp 122 Gigatons
Concussion Torp 126 Teratons

Puts all the weapons in pretty much the same power class, except for concussion missiles, which are MUCH more powerful than turbolasers

Well, there's nothing else to add to that, since it's just the same nonsense numbers based on inflated interpretations.

Again, let's read that again. Gigaton level weapons for TIE fighters.

Oh, it's "just" 12 orders of magnitude above Slave-I's most powerful guns and what Obi-Wan's fighter could cope with.

There's not a single chap on SDN who had the honesty to say that this level of firepower for fighters was way too much, even when you douse yourself into wank juice on a daily basis.

So why post this BS, because it's precisely what it is, if even your sanctified ICS gives fighters "only" kilotons of firepower.
IF you were trying to make a point, which was the reason why Poe posted his thread, it would have been wise, actually, to quote someone who had provided evidence of fighter firepower neighbouring the low kiloton range.

But I suppose that's, again, something they completely miss, and somehow believe they have more "evidence".
Oh maybe no one read what Poe wrote, because no one cares about what he says, even on SDN.

What is funny is that if you decrease the gigaton firepower for fighter weapons by 6 OOMs, to make it match the ICS numbers, you see that if you apply this same factor to capital ship firepower, their teratons of pure wank become megatons. Which doesn't fit with the ICS.

[sarcasm]But I guess that's even more neutronium-solid evidence that the ICS was damn right, and just confirmed what *cough* everybody *cough* knew.[/sarcasm]

Well, let's just laugh at that.

So, huh, nothing new on the radar. That's still not evidence from the movies that would be predating the ICS, safe for the superlaser downscaled argument (but one could argue that this stance could be held since the day ANH first aired).

Ok. So that was what I was asking for, somehow: "since when absurd claims were made?"

However, remember that I also asked on evidence based on the movies (read OP). On that, they fail. Once more.