Base Delta Zero

[Mr. Oragahn]

Base Delta Zero
*sigh*
Various BDZ references on SFJN

[Admiral Breetai]

BTW, yes, I know that this has been gone over again and again. However, I feel as if the Base Delta Zero is a very significant argument in favor of Star Wars, and that counterarguments tend to be very half-hearted, to say the least.

oh look more parroting! but any ways I don't understand how blowing up moons burning away the surface of a planet in seconds...needing to scale back power in order to prevent the accidental ripping of the atmosphere off a planet or Picard thinking the power to completely mass scatter a planet with a fleet to be "primitive" as "half hearted"

Ah, the famous Base Delta Zero. One of the most commonly cited arguments by us pro Wars people. Base Delta Zero involves turning the upper crust of a planet into molten slag, and is the source for Saxton's 200 gigaton figure that he came up with for the AOTC ICS. But what sources support this? A lot, in fact.

Caamas BDZ
Dankayo BDZ
Emberlene BDZ
Meridian BDZ
Bothawui intended BDZ

oh for a second I thought you where gonna use the actual films to support this..then you go and cite evidence that has no basis what so ever in the primary canon

LOTF Revelations:
"I've often fought the urge to reduce a planet to molten slag myself, Niathal said, unmoved. "Probably for totally different reasons to you, Colonel. But I agree with Gil-holding what we seize is going to be a drain on resources, unless Fondor shows some pragmatism and rolls over. Let's give them an extra reason for doing that, beyond annihilation."
Star Wars Technical Journal
Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections
Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections
The Imperial Sourcebook
The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia

so you can't actually show in film examples then..

All of these examples feature several similar aspects:

1. The surface of the planet is devastated. Not just like one would expect in a nuclear war, but melted, turned to slag, atomized, etc. This implies a firepower several OOM's beyond our entire nuclear arsenal.

how quaint a bird of prey did this in seconds with out even using its weapons

2. There are little to no survivors, despite the mass spread possession of space capable craft. Even in a nuclear war, one would expect survivors of some sort, but in most BDZ's there are no survivors at all. This implies that BDZ's are rather fast; done in a few hours, and this, combined with 1, require a firepower per TL in the gigaton range.

a ship that looked like a ford pinto was part of a group that actually turned a planet into an asteroid field

3. There is typically no life surviving after the attack, not even oceanic creatures. Even the 100 teraton extinction event was not enough to completely wipe out the ecosystem; a base delta zero is.

at no point is fire power on this level supported by actual showings in the films

4. The planet often times remains uninhabitable even decades after, even with futuristic terraforming technology.

star wars completely lacks planetary engineering technology in the films thus any material claiming it has it is invalid

"There are lower end BDZ's!" - actually, most supposedly lower end BDZ's are not really low end, but some are. However, the high end BDZ's outnumber the lower end ones, and are harder to handwave/rationalize away. A lower end BDZ could simply be due to a lack of desire or will to destroy everybody, or planetary/theater shields slowing down the damage. A high end BDZ...how do handwave those away? They outnumber the lower end feats, and there are too many to be handwaved away as an outlier or extremity.

"Calculations of them are overstated!" - actually, most calculations made are very low end. For example, Mike Wong's calculation was assuming that the BDZ only extended 1 meter into the ground, even though underground bunkers could easily be lower than that, and BDZ's are described as atomizing the upper crust of a planet. The one hour time frame is not only canon, it is also supported by the fact that there are often times no survivors, despite the common availability of space and hyperdrive capable craft in Star Wars.

oh look a troll post

"General Order 24!" - General Order 24 wipes out all life on a planet. It does not atomize the top soil or boil a planet's oceans. It also uses up probably most or all of the torpedo payload of a large Star Trek starship, whereas a BDZ can be performed by recharging turbolasers.

only the films say it can't be done..and as for GO24 well we have a BOP doing it in seconds with some spare plasma...we have a defiant capable of shattering a world with it's pay load...we have Riker considering absolutely scattering a moon to be nothing major...and we have multiple scenes where ships sit inside stars..trade blows with fire power noted as being able to tear the atmosphere off planets and so on

By the way, some do not consider the EU to be canon. If you do not, then this thread does not apply to you; this is for those who believe the EU to be canon, official, or to be part of the continuity in one way or another.

the thread applies due to your agenda therein

[General Donner]

Caamas BDZ

Caamas wasn't a BDZ. It was a sneak attack performed by mercenaries, though it was supposed to be BDZ-equivalent originally.

However, later writers chose to ignore that and instead made the planet a typical boring Mad Max style wasteland with mutants and monsters rampaging around. And that's the latest canon AFAIK.

Dankayo BDZ

This one is the one that has the least objectionable stuff about it, I believe. And even then there's quite some, but it does actually say the attack blew the topsoil and atmosphere off the planet.

Emberlene BDZ

Not BDZ. People went on living on the planet for decades afterwards -- it became another Mad Max wasteland. The attack wasn't even an extinction event.

Meridian BDZ

Not BDZ, though the planet was certainly swept clear of life and turned into a radioactive ball of rock. However, the source ("Planet of Twilight") says absolutely nothing about how that happened. For all we know, the Star Wars equivalent of Galactus showed up and burped at them.

Bothawui intended BDZ

They thought they could ruin Bothawui's surface with three ISDs (though we never saw them actually trying it). How does that prove multi-teraton firepower?

As for molten slag, below, several of the sources you reference don't support that, and there are several others which do support it that you don't reference (eg, "Jedi Search," The Essential Chronology, etc).

[Mith]

BTW, yes, I know that this has been gone over again and again. However, I feel as if the Base Delta Zero is a very significant argument in favor of Star Wars, and that counterarguments tend to be very half-hearted, to say the least.

...HOW?!

Ah, the famous Base Delta Zero. One of the most commonly cited arguments by us pro Wars people. Base Delta Zero involves turning the upper crust of a planet into molten slag, and is the source for Saxton's 200 gigaton figure that he came up with for the AOTC ICS. But what sources support this? A lot, in fact.

Ah, the infamous Base Delta Zero. One of the most commonly misunderstood topics used by pro-wars people. Base Delta Zero involves bombing a planet's population centers and natural resources--which according to Saxton, must mean reducing the planet's entire surface to molten slag to compensate for the fact that his penis can only be detected on the quantum level.

LOTF Revelations:
"I've often fought the urge to reduce a planet to molten slag myself, Niathal said, unmoved. "Probably for totally different reasons to you, Colonel. But I agree with Gil-holding what we seize is going to be a drain on resources, unless Fondor shows some pragmatism and rolls over. Let's give them an extra reason for doing that, beyond annihilation."

Which means next to nothing. Sorry, but simply handing me a quote of some guy off handidly making a reference to molten slag means very little in debates. Even more so that going with that logic, it means that ST ships should easily exceed this level of firepower given what 40 ships intended to do to the Founder homeworld.

Star Wars Technical Journal

Quote?

Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections
Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections

Which is tripe.

The Imperial Sourcebook
The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia

One that I know is clearly not a very factual description, but more or a colorful one and the second requires a citation.

All of these examples feature several similar aspects:

1. The surface of the planet is devastated. Not just like one would expect in a nuclear war, but melted, turned to slag, atomized, etc. This implies a firepower several OOM's beyond our entire nuclear arsenal.

Our current nuclear arsenal wouldn't depopulate our entire planet, so yeah, I'd guess so. Nor is this at all suggested when the Hutts were bombed and the man in charge was going down to the planet's surface to ensure the destruction was complete--as part of his responsibility for the operation.

2. There are little to no survivors, despite the mass spread possession of space capable craft. Even in a nuclear war, one would expect survivors of some sort, but in most BDZ's there are no survivors at all. This implies that BDZ's are rather fast; done in a few hours, and this, combined with 1, require a firepower per TL in the gigaton range.

No it doesn't. A BDZ is only performed once orbital superiority has been established. That suggests a blockade which would prevent ships from escaping a BDZ. Nor is your argument at all logical; any ship with even ton level ability could quickly destroy any space-capable assets that would escape and a screen of fighters would ensure that even those that managed a quick-launch or had sources unknown to the orbital fleet would be shot down in quick order.

So no, a lack of survivors does not indicate a time index. Nor are orbital bombardment one-ship things. It is a fleet operation, as suggested by the Imperial Source Book.

3. There is typically no life surviving after the attack, not even oceanic creatures. Even the 100 teraton extinction event was not enough to completely wipe out the ecosystem; a base delta zero is.

That's because a 100 teraton extinction event is focused on one part of the planet, meaning that things far away from the explosion have a better chance at surviving. However, if you take KT or MT level firepower and spread around the planet it would require probably less than the 100 teaton extinction event as you so happily scream about. This is why modern day nuclear missiles use multiple warheads that spread over a larger area rather than one big warhead.

Nor of course, does this require gigatons of energy because even if you wanted to claim that you needed 100 tetaton plus firepower, it doesn't mean you have to deliver it all at once.

4. The planet often times remains uninhabitable even decades after, even with futuristic terraforming technology.

An utterly insubstantial claim given you have not quantified what that terraforming technology entails. It sure as hell wouldn't remain uninhabitable for a power like the UFP decided to use the Genesis device on it.

Common counter arguments:

"There are lower end BDZ's!" - actually, most supposedly lower end BDZ's are not really low end, but some are. However, the high end BDZ's outnumber the lower end ones, and are harder to handwave/rationalize away. A lower end BDZ could simply be due to a lack of desire or will to destroy everybody, or planetary/theater shields slowing down the damage. A high end BDZ...how do handwave those away? They outnumber the lower end feats, and there are too many to be handwaved away as an outlier or extremity.

This argument is such an incoherent mess I don't even know where to start. First off, there is no indication that there is a desire to deal less damage nor would planetary shields/theater shields be all that effective if firepower can still pour through the shield.

"Calculations of them are overstated!" - actually, most calculations made are very low end. For example, Mike Wong's calculation was assuming that the BDZ only extended 1 meter into the ground, even though underground bunkers could easily be lower than that, and BDZ's are described as atomizing the upper crust of a planet. The one hour time frame is not only canon, it is also supported by the fact that there are often times no survivors, despite the common availability of space and hyperdrive capable craft in Star Wars.

The one hour time frame is a farce and invented by someone whose more than happy to apply double standards.

"General Order 24!" - General Order 24 wipes out all life on a planet. It does not atomize the top soil or boil a planet's oceans. It also uses up probably most or all of the torpedo payload of a large Star Trek starship, whereas a BDZ can be performed by recharging turbolasers.

This is naturally of course, why in The Dice is Cast, the fleet of 40 warships was going to reduce a Earth sized planet down to its molten core in six hours.

By the way, some do not consider the EU to be canon. If you do not, then this thread does not apply to you; this is for those who believe the EU to be canon, official, or to be part of the continuity in one way or another.

Yeah, it's not like we have an entire thread full of quotes that absolutely laugh at the BDZ claims.

[Mr. Oragahn]

@ A. Breetai

This is pure EU, so please don't insist with attacking it for being from the inferior canon. In other places, all is accepted so it is useful to be able to argue the BDZ claims.
Please just stop jumping in any obvious EU thread and harass the posters with claims of apocrypha, it could get old very quickly.

@ Everybody

SWST is using a rince and repeat technique here. His thread isn't even original enough to bare a unique title, and he has obviously not bothered reading the true original BDZ thread we already have here. I suspect that he didn't even bother searching arguments on this board related to specific BDZ events.
Why waste your time?

Now I'm going to point out a few things about Dankayo (even if I'm merely repeating myself, but it's something important that is totally missed).

Dankayo BDZ

This one is the one that has the least objectionable stuff about it, I believe. And even then there's quite some, but it does actually say the attack blew the topsoil and atmosphere off the planet.

Actually, I pointed out that Dankayo is both used to describe either the planet or the base. At least twice in the book, in the few bits of background fluff relevant to this, the name Dankayo is specifically used to identify the base. Or, in other words: the base is called Dankayo twice.
Plus nothing about the damage that is identified in details fits with the claims.

The rest is detailed in the other thread.

Oh shit, I think I'm going to bump the real BDZ thread and ask for this one to get locked. This is just silly.

[Mr. Oragahn]

There, for those who want the real deal.

[Admiral Breetai]

@ A. Breetai

This is pure EU, so please don't insist with attacking it for being from the inferior canon. In other places, all is accepted so it is useful to be able to argue the BDZ claims.
Please just stop jumping in any obvious EU thread and harass the posters with claims of apocrypha, it could get old very quickly.
.

I'm not attacking it that way what I am saying is 'prove the films support BDZ fire power figures from the EU" I mean you can use the EU but it still needs to mesh with primary canon

but if you want EU only examples we've seen ships from saga sadows era be a major threat to the clone wars era galaxy yet they can barely knock over mountains..theres the TCW cartoon and CGI show both much higher "canon" in the EU that totally contradict BDZ level fire power numerous bombardments are ordered were upon fleets of ships manage to..start..a forest fire? fuck up hick town?

[Praeothmin]

There is nothing new in this thread, so I will merge it with the other one, one I strongly suggest you read, SWST, as all your arguments in favor of the BDZ have been adressed and debunked over and over in that thread...

Thank you.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

What is it with these "your arguments have already been debunked!' counters? I could say that about anything:

You: the Death Star is chain reaction!
Me: that has been debunked over and over again, you are rinsing and repeating stuff

See? Using the "I already debunked that" argument is annoying and a fallacy.

...HOW?!

Because the sources that explicitly mention the planet's upper crust being atomized/etc are not rationalized, but instead the rebuttal is "but there are lower end showings!"

Ah, the infamous Base Delta Zero. One of the most commonly misunderstood topics used by pro-wars people. Base Delta Zero involves bombing a planet's population centers and natural resources--which according to Saxton, must mean reducing the planet's entire surface to molten slag to compensate for the fact that his penis can only be detected on the quantum level.

The Techinical Journel states that it can reduce a world to "smoking debris in a matter of hours".

The Imperial Sourcebook, the first time in which a base delta zero event was implied:

"The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag"

"A Victory-class star destroyer bombarding an unshielded planet's surface to slag in a Base Delta Zero operation." Star Wars Vehicles trading cards


None of these statements were made by Saxton (who, mind you, has a PHD in astrophysics, and all of them are quite blatant. How do you rationalize them? Because you don't like them?

Which means next to nothing. Sorry, but simply handing me a quote of some guy off handidly making a reference to molten slag means very little in debates. Even more so that going with that logic, it means that ST ships should easily exceed this level of firepower given what 40 ships intended to do to the Founder homeworld.

Niathal was characterized as an intelligent, calculating fleet Admiral. Are you saying that she was talking out of her ass?

Are you saying that her statement conveninently fitting the various high end showings of BDZ is mere coincidence?

Quote?

See above.

Which is tripe.

Do any sources contradict it? In fact, there are a multitude of independent sources, most made before the AOTC/ROTS ICS's, supporting the statement.

One that I know is clearly not a very factual description, but more or a colorful one and the second requires a citation.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a quote for the Star Wars Encyclopedia, so you can disregard that for now.

Our current nuclear arsenal wouldn't depopulate our entire planet, so yeah, I'd guess so. Nor is this at all suggested when the Hutts were bombed and the man in charge was going down to the planet's surface to ensure the destruction was complete--as part of his responsibility for the operation.

As I recall, the bombardment in Hutt's Gambit was intentionally botched.

No it doesn't. A BDZ is only performed once orbital superiority has been established. That suggests a blockade which would prevent ships from escaping a BDZ.

Do you realize how big space is? Given the allegedly poor accuracy and allegedly low ship numbers of Star Wars, are you turning around and saying that a fleet can blockade an entire planet and allow not one starfighter to escape?

Not to mention that many BDZ's are done with only one to three ISD's. Several quotes provided state that a single star destroyer can perform a BDZ.

Nor is your argument at all logical; any ship with even ton level ability could quickly destroy any space-capable assets that would escape and a screen of fighters would ensure that even those that managed a quick-launch or had sources unknown to the orbital fleet would be shot down in quick order.

Such would require a huge firing arc and accuracy that the Trek side typically does not supply the Star Wars side with; unless if it suites them.

So no, a lack of survivors does not indicate a time index. Nor are orbital bombardment one-ship things. It is a fleet operation, as suggested by the Imperial Source Book.

"The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag"

That's because a 100 teraton extinction event is focused on one part of the planet, meaning that things far away from the explosion have a better chance at surviving. However, if you take KT or MT level firepower and spread around the planet it would require probably less than the 100 teaton extinction event as you so happily scream about. This is why modern day nuclear missiles use multiple warheads that spread over a larger area rather than one big warhead.

And how would said KT/MT detonations reach deap oceanic creatures, people in underground bunkers and extremophilos in the bottom of volcanos?

Nor of course, does this require gigatons of energy because even if you wanted to claim that you needed 100 tetaton plus firepower, it doesn't mean you have to deliver it all at once.

No, not all at once. But within the time frame of a few hours.

An utterly insubstantial claim given you have not quantified what that terraforming technology entails. It sure as hell wouldn't remain uninhabitable for a power like the UFP decided to use the Genesis device on it.

That's not the point. A few decades is typically enough for secondary sucession after a large disaster in nature, by plants and animals with no terraforming technology.

This argument is such an incoherent mess I don't even know where to start. First off, there is no indication that there is a desire to deal less damage nor would planetary shields/theater shields be all that effective if firepower can still pour through the shield.

The point is that the high end Base Delta Zero feats and statements are too numerous and from too varied sources to dismiss as outliers, and none of you have successfully rationalized away all of them. Therefore, they stand.

The one hour time frame is a farce and invented by someone whose more than happy to apply double standards.

"invented" by someone in a canon source. Your discounting of it because it was "invented" is like discounting that the Second Galactic Civil War happened because it was "invented" by EU writers.

Also, the Technical Journel supports it:

"smoking debris in a matter of hours"

This is naturally of course, why in The Dice is Cast, the fleet of 40 warships was going to reduce a Earth sized planet down to its molten core in six hours.

So it takes 40 ST warships to perform a BDZ in six hours, while a single star destroyer can do it in "a matter of hours?"?

Yeah, it's not like we have an entire thread full of quotes that absolutely laugh at the BDZ claims.

None of which rationalize or overrule the numerous quotes, most before the AOTC/ROTS ICS, that directly support high end Base Delta Zero.

[Praeothmin]

What is it with these "your arguments have already been debunked!' counters? I could say that about anything:

You: the Death Star is chain reaction!
Me: that has been debunked over and over again, you are rinsing and repeating stuff

See? Using the "I already debunked that" argument is annoying and a fallacy.

Then follow the "Read the thread from the first post up to yours" argument, it's very simple, really... :)

while a single star destroyer can do it in "a matter of hours?"?

When?
Where?
Show me the movie or book where this happened.
And to your assertion, I bring back Darksaber, where full powered TL shots from an SSD only caused forest fires, around 1 acre per shot (in this thread)...

[Mith]

"invented" by someone in a canon source.

Whose statements and calculations are directly contradicted by G/T canon.

Your discounting of it because it was "invented" is like discounting that the Second Galactic Civil War happened because it was "invented" by EU writers.

Yeah, by one or two.

Also, the Technical Journel supports it:

"smoking debris in a matter of hours"

Wow, how descriptive. That must mean gigatons of energy, right? Fucking A.

So it takes 40 ST warships to perform a BDZ in six hours, while a single star destroyer can do it in "a matter of hours?"?

Your BDZ operation only included down to a few meters of the crust remember? These ships were going farther than a BDZ--they were literally stripping a planet down to its core. That means no mantle, no crust, no oceans, no atmosphere. And we know that they were being literal.

None of which rationalize or overrule the numerous quotes, most before the AOTC/ROTS ICS, that directly support high end Base Delta Zero.

Empire Strike Back, Downfall of a Droid, and the Ryloth Trilogy. And that doesn't even have me taking into account actual visual nitpicking as opposed to me just using storyline and quotes to utterly bumfuck your argument.

I don't need to even have to explain why your quotes aren't literal. I have higher canon evidence that directly tells you they're wrong.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Whose statements and calculations are directly contradicted by G/T canon.

No, they aren't. Nowhere in G canon does a turbolaser ever hit and fail to destroy an unshielded object.

Yeah, by one or two.

By three, to be more specific. There are far more than three authors citing Base Delta Zero's.

Wow, how descriptive. That must mean gigatons of energy, right? Fucking A.

That was not the point that I was responding to. I was responding to a claim that the hour timeframe was a farce.

Your BDZ operation only included down to a few meters of the crust remember?

No, that was simply the highly conservative calculation. It's actually the upper mantle of a planet.

These ships were going farther than a BDZ--they were literally stripping a planet down to its core. That means no mantle, no crust, no oceans, no atmosphere. And we know that they were being literal.

Oh, were they? Is that why it took the entire photon torpedo payload of the Enterprise to consider destroying a 10 km asteroid?

Empire Strike Back,

How so? Nowhere is an upper limit in ESB established; we do know that theater shields can withstand "any bombardment" from several star destroyers and the freaking Executor.

Downfall of a Droid,

Details please.

and the Ryloth Trilogy.

Details please.

And that doesn't even have me taking into account actual visual nitpicking as opposed to me just using storyline and quotes to utterly bumfuck your argument.

I don't need to even have to explain why your quotes aren't literal. I have higher canon evidence that directly tells you they're wrong.

No you don't. All of these so called "contradictions" are simply very vague, sketchy ones, hardly the "direct contradictions" that you claim.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

No, they aren't. Nowhere in G canon does a turbolaser ever hit and fail to destroy an unshielded object.

You mean apart from grevious flagship and a bunch of other ships in the fight at the start of ROTS.

That was not the point that I was responding to. I was responding to a claim that the hour timeframe was a farce.

That is because you apply it to a greater effect than the one it is assigned to.

No, that was simply the highly conservative calculation. It's actually the upper mantle of a planet.

Proof of upper mantle destruction required.

How so? Nowhere is an upper limit in ESB established; we do know that theater shields can withstand "any bombardment" from several star destroyers and the freaking Executor.

So you do accept their firepower sucks...

No you don't. All of these so called "contradictions" are simply very vague, sketchy ones, hardly the "direct contradictions" that you claim.

Vague and scetchy is the guy who takes the best hyperbole comment regarding "EFFECT" from one source, takes "TIME" from another and "QUANTITY" of ships from another....

[Mike DiCenso]

What is it with these "your arguments have already been debunked!' counters? I could say that about anything:

You: the Death Star is chain reaction!
Me: that has been debunked over and over again, you are rinsing and repeating stuff

See? Using the "I already debunked that" argument is annoying and a fallacy.

*sigh*

What are you bringing to this particular part of the debate that is new and game changing? You've already been directed to various links here and SFJ that deal with the Base Delta Zero issue, how it has been debunked, and there is the thread of incompatiable sources with the ICS that also deals with BDZ as a natural consequence showing actual quotes from the original source material that certain Warsies don't want anyone to see since it does not agree with what they claim.

So again I ask you: what are you bringing to the table here that's new and game changing? If you are unwilling to look at the links or read the forum properly when cited, you are now ignoring people's counter-evidence since actual BDZ effects have been documented extensively, then I am going to assume that you are being dishonest again and issue you another warning. Now, acknowledge that information being provided, SWST.

So it takes 40 ST warships to perform a BDZ in six hours, while a single star destroyer can do it in "a matter of hours?"?

Actually it was just 20 ships in "The Die is Cast", at least four Romulan D'Deridex warbirds and up to 16 Cardassion Keldon class starships. Their expected feat was to be able to entirely strip the crust off of the Founder's homworld in one hour, and the entire mantle to the core in five. They destroyed 30 percent of the crust in the opening volley before being abushed by 150 Jem'Hadar attack ships. No ship in Star Wars has ever done anything like this level of destruction in the movies or TCW, nor even in the EU and the ICS outside of the first Death Star.

I'm just going to quote the SFJN Database:

The BDZ operation is often cited by Warsies as the ultimate expression of Imperial firepower next to that of the Death Star. For evidence, they will commonly cite the webpages of Michael Wong and Curtis Saxton, among others. They will also cite out of context passages from the various Expanded Universe source books and technical material in order to portray the BDZ as being vastly more energetic a procedure than it really is. Among their claims are:

* Taking literally flavor text descriptions such as "reducing a civilized world to slag", and then assuming that this means a star destroyer is actually melting the crust.

*Out of context quotes; in "Scavenger Hunt", they cite crustal melting by using the term "molten slag" to describe the effects of the bombardment on the rebel base located on Dankayo and then claim that is proof of crustal melting.

However the planet's surface is only described as being "evenly cratered" and the topsoil "atomized". In addition, some of the Rebel base's structures survived the attack in a somewhat intact state, and surface operations were carried out by the Imperial forces to look for survivors, as well as carry out a search for the base's computers to obtain intelligence on the Rebellion.

*A similar claim is made about the bombardment of the planet Caamas as detailed in "Coruscant and the Core Worlds". Michael Wong, in particular, in his analysis of BDZ operations for his Stardestroyer.net website claims that "There were no living witnesses to the attack, which means that there were no survivors anywhere on the entire planet (not even animals, plants, or people in buried shelters, according to the official records). This meant that the only surviving Caamasi were those who had been off-world during the attack". Wong also acknowledges here that the bombardment somewhere less than a day to carry out the complete attack, and does not attempt to estimate any specific timeframe.

This claim is disputed by Robert Scott Anderson by giving the actual quotes from the sourcebook which state clearly that the bombardment, while highly devastating, did not by itself wipe out all life or sapient witnesses on the planet, but rather the after-effects; namely dense toxic clouds of soot thrown off into the atmosphere, and firestorms that killed off the native plant and animal populations, as well as most of the Caamsi themselves. No quotes are given as to how many ships this required, and there is no description of any part of the planet, much less the crust, being turned molten, particularly since it is described that the oceans themselves survived the bombardment, though they became highly polluted from the soil erosion runoff.

* Claiming that a single Imperial class star destroyer is capable of melting an Earth-like terrestrial world's crust in one hour or so. This fallacy appears largely to have started with Dr. Curtis Saxton based on extremely shakey assumptions. This claim was later used to help justify the 200 gigaton firepower estimate for turbolasers in the Incredible Cross Sections: Attack of the Clones book.

However, in "Scavenger Hunt", three ISDs are required for the operation, and the timeframe required to carry it out are not specified, though it is implied to be on the order of at least hours, and the effects are considerably less energetic. In "The Imperial Sourcebook", a BDZ operation requires 100 ships, while in "The Star Wars Adventure Journal", at least three such ships are required as was the case at Dankayo in "Scavenger Hunt".

Furthermore, in the case of the BDZ carried out on the Smuggler's Moon, Nar Shaddaa, as described in "The Hutt Gambit", it was expected that mop-up operations on the surface would have to be carried out as well as the capture or destruction of droids. In addition, an experianced Imperial officer in charge of the operation, Soontir Fel, was haunted by visions of burning buildings and bodies indicates what the commander expected to see during the surface mop-up operations after the bombardment was carried out. All this indicates a vastly less energetic bombardment.

The original pre-Saxtonite description of the Base Delta Zero very closely resembles General Order 24 of Star Trek.

So that in a nutshell is why the EU Base Delta Zero is no where near as energetic as it is claimed.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

You mean apart from grevious flagship and a bunch of other ships in the fight at the start of ROTS.

Those guns were loading SHELLS; obviously they were not turbolasers.

That is because you apply it to a greater effect than the one it is assigned to.

This statement makes no sense. The quote blatantly states that a star destroyer can essentially perform a BDZ in a matter of hours. How is this up in the air at all?

Proof of upper mantle destruction required.

AOTC ICS.

Awaiting ad hominem in three...two...one...

So you do accept their firepower sucks...

Stupid conclusion. How did you come to the conclusion that a theater shield withstanding any bombardment means that said ships' firepower sucks instead of, you know, the shield being very strong?

Vague and scetchy is the guy who takes the best hyperbole comment regarding "EFFECT" from one source, takes "TIME" from another and "QUANTITY" of ships from another....

All of my sources, of which are numerous and made by various authors, have the same gist:

Star destroyer or a few atomizing/slagging/blowing the planet's surface/crust into molten slag/smoking debris in an hour/a matter of hours with no survivors.








@Mike:


Oh, that incident. This is a counter example of a claim that has been debunked over and over again being restated. The "30% of the planetary crust" claim was blatantly contradicted by the visuals, which showed neither 30% of the planet's crust gone nor the effects that one would see from such an event.