Opinion, not fact. What’s the point of a debate forum if you cannot argue points that are ‘wrong’?
An opinion which appears very valid, thanks to the remaining work available to anyone on this board. The same work you ignore repeatedly.
What is the point of debating if, when a conclusion is reached after an exhaustive exchange of arguments and evidence, any newcomer behaves like said exchange, said work, never happened?
Yet that is precisely what you do.
You know that we have posted plenty of evidence of low yields, that we have largely shown why the age old claims of super firepower were wrong. This is not opinion, this is fact, and it's very easy to find since anytime you'll think of a specific case, all it takes is using the search function to find the threads, pages or posts which precisely address the question and debunk fallacious claims.
If, at least, you have new arguments or new forms of evidence to provide, I'd have no problem to reconsider any question, but you don't. And I'm sorry, but logic is understood by many people, and you've constantly failed to defend your claims. So much that the only thing you could do is ignore the other side, go lalala, and restart the same claims elsewhere, claiming that nothing ever got debunked.
In essence, what I posted
here.
Can you understand a single word of what I wrote? Can you?
Proof is that nothing, absolutely nothing of what you ever argued for here is either new or challenging towards claims made here before you arrived. You simply completely ignore what we did. You completely ignored basic statements, simple facts, crystal clear conclusions and solid logic, in favour of your denials and repetitive broken claims.
And obviously, nobody has
ever made the argument that Dankayo had no atmosphere.
I did on this board, in this thread. It's a theory that works.
Nobody has ever made the argument that the Death Star is not a conventional weapon in the Wars universe.
Pardon? Are you claiming that no one ever said that the Death Star was a very unique and special kind of weapon?
If so, that would be a lie. A very big one, since it's been claimed over and over here and elsewhere.
It's also been claimed that it doesn't even exactly rely on a souped up conventional tech, but relies on exotic systems as well, and that eons before you came here.
This is nothing more than pure trolling, as you cannot honestly be so oblivious to what happened.
Wait, you can actually feign being that ignorant, as you simply need not to bother consulthing anything ever said/posted before you.
Basically, before you, there was nothing. What a God complex we have here.
Unfortunately for you, to the rest of the plebe, you look like a fool.
Nope, every single one of your arguments are original masterpieces crafted by yours truly.
For the Dankayo atmosphere, it's possible. It's not like it matters. The claims, or say...
my claims, are correct, as far as I'm concerned. I even let you a chance to disprove them in the latest pages, and you've failed miserably thus far.
In fact, the leaking atmosphere is the only way to go in order to make the flavour text logical and plausible.
For the Death Star, as I said, you're a fool and terribly wrong, or a huge liar. Any ways, you're being of negative value here, as usual.
Of course, you have no problem with Picard quoting arguments from darkstar’s pages or his own blogs, meaning that they are by definition unoriginal.
I'm not on Picard's back 24/7, and I don't double check everything he types, genius.
Yet I consider that many things RSA wrote are good. That doesn't prevent me from telling Picard that I find his conclusions about Trek firepower simply ridiculous. Even RSA never claimed anything like he did. The closest on this board to have ever claimed figures remotely close to Pic's is JMS, and they still were far behind. Then, and again, way behind, probably came Mike D.
How many times has self-vaporizing asteroids been brought up already? Surely everyone beyond the original conceiver should be banned for blatant dishonesty!
The original conceiver of what? Are you arguing an intelligent and valid observation? The "gasoline rocks" thread is my pet, but I didn't remember that RSA had already tackled that question years ago, in a more superficial way apparently. Why is it so important to know when the claims were made?
We don't care, even if they're 2000 years old, as long as they are valid.
There's really something absurdly broken here. You cannot so miserably fail to comprehend the point of using proper logic and evidence to debunk claims, no matter their age.
It really takes a devious kind of mind to really do what you do.
And, eventually, to avoid inflating the size of this thread so you could again evade crucial points, you're welcome to focus on the BDZ part only.
And I would invite you to show me where anybody had made the argument that the turbolasers in the RotS quote were light due to their description of tracking starfighters, or the argument that Riker had to have been referring to fragmentation due to the fact that vaporization would mean that the very first impact would fragment the asteroid into trillions of pieces and make further vaporization impossible.
Nice try at a red herring. It's not because I make a general statement about your dishonesty that I'm opening a door to debate here everything that's been "debated" with you in multiple other threads.
What are we to do, if not ban you in light of such dishonesty, really? The only reason you're here is because JMS has yet to come to his senses about you really are.
How about you hop onto your spacebattles.com account and debate me there?
In case you didn't notice, genius, I've been permabanned from SBC by a case of cretinous mods who spent most of their time one hand in their pants glaring at their warhammer and star wars figurines.
Not that it's going to change anything about the way you behave.
A planet is raw materials. Its mantle and core are full of precious raw materials.
You plan to destroy them as well?
Do you even think before posting?
Wow, what an amazing feat in nitpicking technicalities.
No, it's not.
Obviously, there has to be a reasonable limit. Oil deposits regularly used by even a modern society does not pass this limit. Claiming that mineral deposits in the planet’s core that are never used somehow counts as assets of production is just grasping at straws.
You’re attempting to dismiss that “all natural resources” should be considered at all simply because you could conceivably stretch it to ridiculous lengths.
And that is exactly what I meant by already debunked claims. I think I even gave you a link to RSA's page where there's, in substance, the same kind of point I made here.
If you really want to deny all available resources of a planet, you have to deny the planet's entire mass, because in Star Wars, they can harvest a planet down to the core if they really want.
This is where it gets fun. Let's imagine how one could prevent, say, World Devastators from exploiting a planet's mass. You suddenly realize that even the Saxtonian BDZ falls terribly short of the requirements to prevent such machines from doing what they do best.
But don't get me wrong. As I said, exploiting raw materials is kinda easy in Star Wars, and you don't need to go looking for World Devastators to get there. You speak of natural resources which are never used.
By whom? How far? How much? You speak of oil deposits, but this is not Earth. Exploiting oil deposits and claiming it to be the apex of energetic resource harvesting in Star Wars is deeply stupid.
Hey, how do you expect to prevent industries from not exploiting the helium of gas giants for example?
I also find it amusing how
I must suddenly be the reasonable one here. You just reversed the accusation, but I'm not the one claiming that the Empire has to turn an entire planet into a bright and boiling ocean of lava in order to effectively deny a planet to people and industries.
More importantly, I just love how you guys decide when it's good enough to stop your literalism. They say to remove all life and all resources, no? You say that's good basis for arguing for teratons of firepower because all of it has to be removed, but at the same time you must be parsimonious, otherwise you'd be falling prey to fanaticism and some kind of intellectual gluttony... how comical. Let's just say that the moment you put a foot in the door of absolutism, there's no honest reason not to get entirely through.
You're just being dishonest, conveniently stopping midways.
Heck, why not argue petatons within thirty minutes?
- Fisheries: artificial constructs to grow fish. Not to be confounded with natural fisheries, which would obviously require destroying most oceans to do so. Man made fisheries, even if underwater, can easily be targeted. Go look up for "fisheries" in a dictionary, and you'll see that no one needs to go for the meaning that supports absolutely ludicrous firepower levels.
Natural fisheries are “natural resources”.
The text from Galaxy Guide 9 (and the other thing abou the Sun assault team) only says fisheries, along citing other man made assets. I take the definition which doesn't support Saxton, and I'm in my plain right to do so.
The argument on fisheries was largely used to prove that oceans had to be boiled away.
It's not true. There are fisheries which don't require that, and the firepower that would be needed to boil away some oceans wouldn't leave scorched cadavers, burning buildings and smoking rubble.
- Underground mines: they're just tunnels, you cretin. You merely need to collapse them. If it's the ore inside that annoys you, you have to snap the planet away with MAGIC!
Sure. You “just” need to collapse every underground mine on the planet. Show me a single source stating that the cold war nuclear arsenal could do this.
Show me a source that says that the entirety of Earth was mined.
Let me explain you something. If you're going to say that they have to indiscriminately fire at the whole surface just to be sure not to miss the slightest pathetic dirt hole ever dug by some peasant, you're certainly not thinking strategically.
Targets that matter are targets of importance. Like areas of large activity, with evident support of high tech industrial means, the kind which might even allow the exploitation of resources even in compeltely hostile and naturally lethal environments.
These are easy to spot, even from space.
The small mines, no one gives a shit about them. Those who work in them, or more precisely, used to work in them, will have bigger concerns to care about than going down some small hole to grab some charcoal or else. Most likely because the people limited to that low level of technology will simply die and won't have a way to return to their irrelevant mines some time later.
This is quite ridiculous in fact, because a wanker's BDZ doesn't remove matter. It merely heats it up. You can still come some time later and grab the shit for yourself, assuming you have suits and vessels, working droids capable of retaining an artificial atmosphere.
Which is found in droves in SW.
See? Even by "your" silly definition, you actually don't deny the resources. You merely postpone their exploitation.
NOTE: I personally think the BDZ is also a clever way for private contractors with ties to the Empire to get their hands on raw materials without having to bother with fees and local customs anymore, and also making much more profit that way.
- Oil deposits, same stuff. You destroy all industrial assets. Otherwise, you need to destroy the whole planet.
Yes…like bottom-of-the-ocean drills and oil deposits.
Oil deposits ultimately are of little importance in SW. Don't even think you can gain some ground against me by arguing on that. See above.
- Aquatic creatures will die if you achieve proper nuclear winter and fire at seismic hot spots. A biopshere is a fragile thing, in case you didn't notice.
No, you really won’t. And no, the biosphere is not a very fragile thing as a collective whole. The vast majority of aquatic species survived the 100 teraton K-T extinction event (which actually did
less damage that a base delta zero would).
The KT, again, was a local event, albeit of a huge magnitude. Can you comprehend that?
The creatures which survived could already do it under similar temperature conditions. The KT didn't involve a carpet bombing depositing nuclear firepower right at their door step, on the bed rock.
We've recently seen with the oil leaks in the Gulf of Mexico that you can hit a huge area with, what? A few miserable holes.
Now picture ships making such holes everywhere on your seabed.
You know, if the Empire happens to miss some bacterias and a few penguins but turn the whole planet into a proverbial cinder, I don't think their demonstration of firepower will be dismissed as some kind of failure at obscene, reckless and calous devastation.
- Forests and their wildlives aren't assets of production. Production only happens with a form of industry, even if primitive. As forests are the easiest part of the BDZ, destroyed with peripheral effects due to the bombardment.
Oh no, you can’t cut down trees to make houses (hence assist in production) without a form of industry beyond building an axe.
But the trues aren't the industrial assets of production proper. They're the resource.
They're treated as such because they only get turned into something else with the intervention of some form of tooling.
Above all things, absolutely all these arguments are NOTHING NEW.
And absolutely none of your rebuttals are anything new, and all involve a gross misunderstanding of the energy requirements to eradicate a planet’s ecosystem and destroy all assets of production. You think that a nuclear winter can destroy the aquatic ecosystem when none of history’s extinction events ever accomplished this.
You claim the rebuttals are nothing new, yet you don't even grasp the inherent problems of your position. And when I point that BDZ definitions to put a cap on how far one has to push destruction to achieve said BDZ, what essentially was your way to conveniently push the cursor as far as "melt the surface of the world", I tell you that's it both dishonest and convenient, as you're not denying the resources below said affected layer, and you're certainly not even denying the residue, the slag, resulting from the BDZ.
It also goes without saying that with ships capable of firing teratons, no one, not even the Emperor, would have seen a point having a weapon that just turns a planet into some pebbles field because there'd have been very little fundamental gain, on the scale of WOW. If anything, it would have made him look even more stupid.
That, again, isn't any kind of new point either.
And yet you quote me showing that I believe weapons can deliver megatons. It's not like a rain of concentrated high kilotons wouldn't work, you know, if you really have to reach some underground base.
Next time, try to read properly.
Nice job at dodging the point. Megaton weapons’ shockwaves are not dangerous “even kilometers below the surface”. You’re simply making shit up.
The shockwaves can actually cause much damage, as proved by the tremors which caused damage to Echo base.
I didn't claim that the overall structures would be damaged though. You can cause damage inside a building and even start fires without pulling the building down. Basic seismic stuff Japanese kids learn at school.
So please not ignore that point I re-made a third time.
Except that I'm not exactly pushing the idea that megaton blasts will dramatically deform the structures. That is why I'm saying one must continue firing downwards.
No, they won’t deform the structures at all. They must continue firing downwards for hours at your yields just to get to a single shelter. Yet they have to destroy them
all in a matter of hours.
We don't even know if the structures will be deformed or not. We can already, in theory, place structures deep underground, even if we don't do it yet. Still, if some significant seismic activity were to happen, said structures, literally stuck to the walls of the cavity produced by the removal of the rock, would be distorted by the tremors and the walls of the underground compounds would be directly affected.
Unless, for some reason, the structure was isolated from the cavity's walls, or that the materials were of super durability. But we cannot claim such a thing for all structures possibly built in SW. We simply don't know how, for examples, all mining industries of the galaxy implant and build their underground structures. That's why I wasn't firm.
And that's why I said that to be sure you'd really destroy the target, you'd have to fire until your blasts really reached it significantly.
Considering how high nuclear yields are capable to vaporize considerable amounts of matter, especially in confined volumes (which will be the case the deeper they go), it won't take long to reach the underground levels.
Take Dankayo. Agent ZNT-8 obviously didn't have to reach the surface by crawling through kilometers of vertical accessway, with systems gone off.
That kind of depth would easily be reached by mid to high kilotons of rays fired at the ground. It's quite simple.
Oh, they can't be sure that they've destroyed all possible kinds of bunkers, even those they don't know to exist?
If that's going to be your counter argument, think again. In your view, SW ships can fires teratons. Their force fields and hulls can withstand that much firepower, plus thousands of gees of acceleration.
Let me tell you, then, that hiding a base inside the damn lower mantle of a planet would be a piece of cake.
This leaves you with no other solution but to have to blast the entire mantle apart as well. Gone are the times when only melting the surface of the planet, down to one meter or a bit more. Or even one kilometer. No, that's not enough anymore.
And again, this is how I prove that you're completely wrong. I'm only curious about the kind of over the top, reaching and pathetic squirming you'll pull in order to pretend being able to get out of this dead end.
The structures may be hard, but just like for helmets, they don't stop momentum. They won't stop tremors (unless built with systems to absorb shocks, but there's no evidence of that), and it's the machines inside which will suffer most. See Hoth and how the base was being dramatically shaken. Past some point, the inside was almost completely ruined.
Yes, they will reduce the effect of tremors, but they won’t really need to because the many kilometers of rock will have already made it completely negligible.
Think again if you believe that a few km of rock can significantly diffuse tremors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave <- compression waves, the most likely waveform resulting from an impact at the surface in my opinion.
Look at their respective speeds there :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Speed ... _waves.PNG and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehmann_discontinuity
Waves moving at a couple km/s will almost immediately hit your bunker the moment the blast has occurred.
The difference of material between the rock and the structure will be a factor of sudden change in the propagation. Of course, the fact that an underground structure is mostly hollow will certainly NOT help at all.
Most of all, read this :
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?c ... 2&faqID=88
USGS FAQ wrote:Q: Can nuclear explosions cause earthquakes?
A: On January 19, 1968, a thermonuclear test, codenamed Faultless, took place in the Central Nevada Supplemental Test Area. The codename turned out to be a poor choice of words because a fresh fault rupture some 1200 meters long was produced. Seismographic records showed that the seismic waves produced by the fault movement were much less energetic than those produced directly by the nuclear explosion.
Analysis of local seismic recordings (within a couple of miles) of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site shows that some tectonic stress is released simultaneously with the explosion. Analysis of the seismic wavefield generated by the blast shows the source can be characterized as 70-80 percent dilational (explosive-like) and 20-30 percent deviatoric (earthquake-like). The rock in the vicinity of the thermonuclear device is shattered by the passage of the explosions shock wave. This releases the elastic strain energy that was stored in the rock and adds an earthquake-like component to the seismic wavefield. The possibility of large Nevada Test Site nuclear explosions triggering damaging earthquakes in California was publicly raised in 1969. As a test of this possibility, rate of earthquake occurrence in northern California (magnitude 3.5 and larger) and the known times of the six largest thermonuclear tests (1965-1969) were plotted and it was obvious that no peaks in the seismicity occur at the times of the explosions. This is in agreement with theoretical calculations that transient strain from underground thermonuclear explosions is not sufficiently large to trigger fault rupture at distances beyond a few tens of kilometers from the shot point.
The Indian and Pakastani test sites are approximately 1000 km from the recent Afghanistan earthquake epicenter. The question that has been asked is whether or not the occurrence of these nuclear tests influenced the occurrence of the large earthquake in Afghanistan. The most direct cause-effect relationship is that the passage of the seismic waves, generated by the thermonuclear explosion, through the epicentral region in Afghanistan somehow triggered the earthquake. For example, following the occurrence of the magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake in southern California on June 28, 1992, the rate of seismicity in several seismically active regions in the western US, as far as 1250 km from the epicenter, abruptly increased coincident with the passage of the earthquake generated seismic wavefield through each site. The abrupt increases in seismicity occurred primarily in regions of geothermal activity and recent volcanism. The mechanism by which this occurred remains unknown. The Afghanistan earthquake occurred at 06:22:28 UT on May 30, 1998 and the thermonuclear test most closely associated in time occurred at 06:55 UT or after the occurrence of the earthquake. The other nuclear tests occurred 2-20 days before the earthquake.
The elastic strains induced in the epicentral region by the passage of the seismic wavefield generated by the largest of the nuclear tests, the May 11 Indian test with an estimated yield of 40 kilotons, is about 100 times smaller than the strains induced by the Earth's semi-diurnal (12 hour) tides that are produced by the gravitational fields of the Moon and the Sun. If small nuclear tests could trigger an earthquake at a distance of 1000 km, equivalent-sized earthquakes, which occur globally at a rate of several per day, would also be expected to trigger earthquakes. No such triggering has been observed. Thus there is no evidence of a causal connection between the nuclear testing and the large earthquake in Afghanistan and it is pure coincidence that they occurred near in time and location.
One last point. The largest underground thermonuclear tests conducted by the US were detonated in Amchitka at the western end of the Aleutian Islands and the largest of these was the 5 megaton codename Cannikin test which occurred on November 6, 1971. Cannikin had a body wave magnitude of 6.9 and it did not trigger any earthquakes in the seismically active Aleutian Islands. Suggested reading: "Nuclear Explosions and Earthquake, the Parted Veil", by Bruce A. Bolt, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1976. (UC Berkeley)
1st underlined piece: under a few tens of km, there's still enough strain to cause faults.
2nd underlined piece: why the planet will give a hand in producing more damage.
3rd underlined piece: the Indian test, on the eleventh of May, was only rated at 40 Kilotons.
4th underlined piece: science fail. I cannot fathom how the author reached such an absurd conclusion. The tidal forces may be 100 times greater than a 40 KT nuclear zbang! (and what about greater nuclear yields then?), but a nuclear blast is of considerable power, much different than the gradient pull and release from tidal forces that occur over several hours, not nano to micro seconds!
Oh, so a base designed to be evacuated ASAP inside a mountain being affected by trembles somehow equates to a shelter kilometers below the surface being affected by shockwaves from weapons of the same yield now?
Depth increases, but yields increase as well. I of course would never accept the idea that kilotons were fired at the mountain unless clear evidence was provided, which hasn't happened yet.
We're let with, at best, sub-kiloton shots which wreak havoc inside a base buried under hundreds of meters of rock and ice.
You’re making a factually incorrect assertion; that kilotons or megatons are somehow energetic enough to cause significant earthquakes felt through kilometers of rock when they are not.
Of course such nuclear tests will be felt through the rock. See above.
And nice job at bringing the AT-AT 150 kiloton point up.
I said mere kilotons. Where did you find that 150 KT figure?
Screaming that the explosion was just the base’s reactor overloading does not explain the secondary explosion and contradicts assertions that Wars uses fusion reactors, which do not combust. So if an AT-AT’s laser cannons at full power can yield triple digit kilotons, how could HTL’s yield no more?
I don't know what you're talking about here.
Only a total douche would ever think of melting the whole surface of a planet, down to several kilometers, just in order to dislodge some Rebels hidden in one or several bunkers he doesn't even know to exist for sure, instead of merely parking a minor force and just blockading the planet by starving the rats out.
Starving out? And exactly how long is that going to take, given the amount of food and water that could be stored in a sufficiently large shelter and the stated ability to synthesize nutrients (Slave Ship)?
They can't go anywhere. Meanwhile, your imperial garrison on the surface has access to all it needs. Of course, it doesn't take much superscience to use seismic systems to scan the inside of a planet deep down a couple kilometers (I suspect that kind of tech largely superior to what we can do today).
So at some point they may be able to find the rats if they really want to, time only being the limit.
If the Rebels can have access to months of food and food synthetizers, so can the Imperials.
And that is exactly what they do, fact. The Rebel Agent in Dankayo feared for his life from the bombardment, he did not say “they have so thoroughly blockaded the planet that I fail for my life”.
What the fuck? Isn't that a strawman? What is your silly point?
Yes, he feared for his life because when he recorded his message, the base was under bombardment.
Still, although that was not my point, I'll remind you that three ISDs and two transport ships makes for an effective blockade against such an isolated and small target.
And good job lengthening a discussion with some irrelevant shit,
again.
And I told you that "all life" had to be rationalized because in Star Wars it can reach such levels that you never know you've killed all life until you snap the planet out of existence with MAGIC! or hyperspace shunting (Death Star).
So we have to go for what is enough to spoil a planet for most species and civilizations, and looking at what we see in Star Wars, it's clear that a nuclear waste land stuck in a nuclear winter, with a toxic and thick atmosphere and a poisoned biosphere is just good enough.
The least you can get is the explicit statement from many sources of the killing of “all sapient life”. If you want to debate whether “all life” includes unicellular bacteria, go ahead. But we know at least that all sentient beings must be killed, and this alone is more than your nuclear winter can accomplish.
You think?
That's patently false, for three reasons:
First because of the deep underground bunker scenario I detailed above, an extrapolation upon your own belief about what SW tech allows in terms of materials, force fields, heat dissipation, and so on (all more or less relevant to e22 W power level tech, if you don't get it).
Secondly because there be can sapient lifeforms which could live anywhere inside a planet for whatever reasons authors could come up with.
You could already start from the
Filar-Nitzan. Again, let's not mention beings to pure energy, those which might be able to literally live in lava, or even planet wide organisms a bit like in the creature in the third Starship Troopers movie. Or what will you do against mineral-based sapient species which could live inside relatively cold-core planets? Oh look,
shit that survives blaster shots (weapons which according to Saxton and I guess, you, would leave 0.5 meters wide craters in duracrete walls). Surely those things wouldn't have much problem living deep down Mars for example.
Thirdly, as a combination of both, sapience applies to machines with sufficient cognitive abilities, such as droids, and based on your vision of SW, there would be nothing to prevent someone from creating droids capable of surviving inside planets, just for the sake of it.
The thing is, no matter how we look at it, we have to consider that the BDZ order is tailored for the target. It has to be adaptive to some degree.
I wonder what books you've read, because the scenario I had has shown that you obtained massive casualties with minor application of firepower spread in an intelligent manner, with something like a hundred 15 KT shots at most (I said 10 KT in my previous post but it actually was 15 KT:
clicky (although that's not the PDF I have, which is more detailed)).
“massive casualties” is not enough. You need to have 100% fatalities of all sapient life. You have failed to prove that your BDZ can do this.
And as seen above, it's impossible to guarantee unless you erase the planet from existence.
Plus smoking rubble, scorched corpses and burning buildings, etc.
Now, for a better idea of how ludicrous this BDZ debate got in the past, SWST, please see here:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/BB/BBbd0.html# (if you can read post the canon related comments)
Humans largely depend on food types which are obtained from crops. Crops are very fragile resources, and bees play a central role there. Air currents do wonders to transport particles, notably nuclear particles, across entire oceans. They can do it with sand, which is heavier in general.
Wrong, modern humans depend on grown crops, Wars humans can synthesize food and water. And even if they can’t, your plan involves a comparatively long term (months) starvation of the survivors, perhaps more for sapients that do not require sustenance as readily as humans do.
The long term starvation is still much more cost-effective from a strategical standpoint than spending god knows how many gallons of fuel to produce an impressive lava canvas over a whole planet and pushing a great deal of your ship systems to their limits.
Truth is, contrary to your wet dreams, with the surface ruined nuclear winter style, plus with some emphasis on certain spots, the lazy blockade is more than enough at that point.
It doesn't take a genius to know that spreading the whole nuclear firepower of the planet over it surface would totally kill us. Around the 90s, the total nuclear firepower's yield was estimated at 20 gigatons. The scientific projection only used like 20,000 times less energy than that.
With the total yield, you can fire 2 million 15 KT bombs. That's of course totally overkill.
…no, it really isn’t. There would still be survivors, and the ecosystem as a whole would still surely survive. Many modern bunkers and bases are projected to require several megaton nukes to bust. Deep planetary shelters would be directly unaffected by a nuclear holocaust.
With 20 gigatons spread over the planet, in smart locations? You got to be joking. You can already get rid of nearly half the world population of Earth by firing at the largest first two or three thousand cities, which you can level with a pattern of spread multi-KT shots instead of one big megaton blast.
See for example 50 MT centered on New York here:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hyd ... m=9&op=156
You can see how far it reaches, but also how the overpressure drops in strength.
If you try 50 KT, you'll realize that you certainly don't need a thousand such bombs to cover roughly the same area, with the advantage of bringing greater levels of overpressure over, in fact, a larger area than with the 50 MT blast. You don't even need a hundred 500 KT blasts to cover as much area.
A 90 MT nuke, according to the simulator above, presents a 15 psi coverage radius of 6.86 miles. A 90 Kt nuke a radius of 0.69.
The areas respectively are 147.842 and 1.496 square miles. This is a factor of 98. See? You need almost a hundred times more firepower with one 90 MT nuke than with several 90 nukes. Of course the scenario is not perfect because you may want some overlap going on, so you'd end firing almost twice more 90 KT shots to fill the blanks.
The following simulator is cool because it provides information about mass fires:
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/ ... simulator/
10 KT has a certain mass fire area of 5 km². A 1000 KT bomb has an area of 275 km². One yield is a hundred times superior to the other, yet the gain between one area and the smaller one is only of 55.
We still have Mike Wong's NEC:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html
A 1 KT nuke has a ground air blast radius (for near total fatalities) of 280 m.
A 1 MT nuke has a radius of the same type that stretches over 2700 meters.
We have increase the yield a thousand fold yet the gain in coverage area is only 93 times superior.
The greater the blast, the less efficient it is. This discrepancy grows further as the yield increases. It comes as no surprise, then, that you could obtain the same overall effects produced by the KT event, with much less energy spread more intelligently.
Obviously, Imperials strategists would already have geological biological analysis tools in order to know, after scanning a planet, where to shoot to maximize destruction. Computers would immediately provide them a list of coordinates to aim at, which they could even do automatically.
Of course, this level of competence is something that you would never concede to the Empire unless if it happens to suit your ends, which doesn’t really change anything because you still haven’t provided jack shit to prove that this will eradicate
all sapient life.
This level of competence is very basic. Now if they can't achieve that, if they can't get the computers to suck up that kind of data, I wouldn't expect them to be able to build power cores allowing for teratons of firepower.
No, in reality, spotting such geological formations is an easy thing. Much easier than spotting disturbances in planetary shields, which torpedo spheres do.
Cities, in general, aren't big secrets, so they shall be easy targets, no matter where they are.
Except that you would have to flash boil large portions of the ocean if there are plenty of underwater cities dispersed throughout the planet, as is the case in Mon Calamari.
You just have to destroy the cities underwater the way you'd destroy them above, with taking into account energy absorption by water and the different behaviour for the overpressure.
The bonus effect of vaporizing massive amounts of water is that it will create a massive vacuum which will immediately be filled by the surrounding water, which will fall onto the city and crush it even further, which doesn't happen much with air.
So what you lose one way, you gain the other way.
SW's medical science isn't a miracle. Its bacta comes in very limited supply.
What proof do you have that bacta comes in a “very limited supply” in a well supplied planet?
Let's get to first things first. What makes you think that the average planet to be targeted by a BDZ will be a well supplied planet? Especially when said supplies would obviously be targeted?
Notice that bacta doesn't clean up a biosphere. It's not useful if your world has turned to shite.
You know, for example, that by polluting all of a planet's stock of glaciers, you'd actually probably end killing ALL species which rely on fresh water?
Surely, humans and the like will be completely at loss, and bacta isn't really useful when used on non-sentient or semi-sentient species. They can't drive vessels and won't give you a hand.
Not even Flipper.
It would certainly not be enough to take care of a planetary population, assuming you could have access to it in any reasonable amount of time, or assuming you knew of what happened to begin with.
Actually, just a few hundred thousand survivors being cared for is enough to nullify the mission goal of killing “all sapient life”.
Same goes for bacteria or other creatures living deep underground. Safe for droids built from tech in your teraton-firepower realm. Same goes for anyone living in a base protected by a teraton-level forcefield a hundred km beneath the surface of a planet, somewhere you can't find. Or deep down in a gas giant.
I think you should do something constructive, like trying to provide a rationalization.
I don't feel like repeating myself as to why you cannot destroy all life on a planet for sure without removing the planet from existence. Same goes for the resources.
And same goes for the very fact that Soontir Fel knew what his mop-up teams would face.
There IS a discrepancy between the idea that a BDZ has to be understood as something as formidable as you may think it is (which is nothing more than you arbitrarily deciding where enough destruction is enough, basically), and the
real results.
Get real, a proper medical evacuation of such proportions could only happen through massive heaps of collaboration, not with twitchy space born genociders flying around.
Because obviously, no planet at war with the Empire would
ever have an evacuation plan for an orbital bombardment.
That is why a proper world destruction, as per the ISB, uses a hundred ships spread into three bombard squadrons and a light squadron which may, at time, give a hand to one of them (even if it's frowned upon).
They blockade the planet as much as they bombard it.
A handful ISDs alone might burn the world, but they'll have a hard time stopping all ships.
The whole "no escape" literalistic argument also has suffered. It's not tenable. It's an ideal goal, not one that should be expected to be achieved with 100% efficiency. At least not outside the use of a proper quantity of warships.
Remember, my lowly friend, that in a textbook definition of a BDZ, in the ideal scenario, a fleet of a hundred ships is required, even if an ISD can achieve the mission on its own.
This certainly reduces the chances of escapes as much as it renders any potential rescue harder as well.
“required” my ass, you liar. A single star destroyer has done a textbook BDZ (destroying everything) on numerous occasions. The Technical Guide and Imperial Sourcebook mention that a single ISD can do it. A fleet of mercenaries has done it. Indeed, the very same source you mention (which mentions that a BDZ fleet “typically” has such numbers) also specifies the composition of said fleets, and the vast majority of the ships are support vessels.
Obviously, intentionally or not, you are confusing ideally taking 100 support vessels to do a BDZ to thinking that you need 100 ships to do the damage, when the fact that one ISD can perform such a thing clearly implies that the 100 fleet ships are there to blockade the planet, not to actually fire at it.
Of course, the same WEG implies imperial fleet sizes of hundreds of thousands of heavy destroyers, but that’s cherry picking sources to you.
Time is not given, and there's no way to know if the language is a bit flowery or the data written under the scope of propaganda.
Now, on the other hand, the ISB gives us a clear description of what the Empire uses when it has to entirely destroy a world.
The BDZ terminology isn't found in that book, but the goal is exactly that, and not matched by any other description.
It also remains, to this day, the most detailed description of how the Imperial Navy operates and spreads its forces depending on the mission.
See there for a start:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html#II-B
We can consider, first, that an ISD has enough firepower to do
some serious damage over an unknown amount of time, but it can't do the complete operation on its own without dramatically reducing the chances of success and the efficiency.
Let me enlighten you about the situation with information from the Imperial Sourcebook.
A typical System Bombard (SB) is composed of three Bombard Squadrons and one Light Squadron, for a total of 100 ships.
Squadrons contain from 14 to 60 ships on the average. They are composed of Lines.
Lines contain between 1 to 20 ships, with 7% of them comprising an average of 4 ships.
For the reminder, said ships are usually, at least, 100 meters long or more.
In some ways, ISDs are considered their own line.
Now, a Bombard Squadron counts 2 Torpedo Lines, 1 Skirmish Line and 1 Pursuit Line, for an average of 20 to 28 vessels.
A Torpedo Line consists of 2 Torpedo Spheres. It goes without saying that though they're used against planetary shields and principally built to get said shields down, they won't twiddle their fingers once the shield is down. They're considered small Death Stars, are much bigger than ISDs and are full orientated towards planetary bombardment.
A Skirmish Line is composed of 4 to 20 small ships on the average, mostly corvettes.
A Pursuit Line counts 4 to 10 ships, usually light cruisers but also corvettes at times.
A Light Squadron consists of at least 2 Attack Lines, 1 Skirmish Line and 1 Recon Line, for an average of 20 to 30 ships of all types.
An Attack Line contains 3 to 6 ships, few heavy cruisers or more numerous light cruisers or frigates.
The Recon Line is composed of 2 to 4 ships, usually light cruisers.
Now my personal observation is that the diagram of pages 104-105 is quite messy and unclear.
Still, we can note that in the description of a System Bombard, no ISD is present in the composition.
But we also know from the book that an ISD could in theory replace a line on its own.
I suppose one dedicated to heavy assault, planet assault or troop deployment.
Notice, then, that what should logically be a BDZ (although not named), is an action taken when the former siege of a world proved too hardened by enemies and that the Empire wants to deny the planet to rebels.
Also, notice that a real System Bombard then uses no less than
12 torpedo spheres (3 Bombard Squadrons x 2 Torpedo Lines x 2 torp. spheres), and that all other tasks required for proper blockade are taken care by a vast array of warships, from heavy ones to fast and smaller ones.
No EU author has yet bothered to paint such a massive event. They always put a huge emphasis on Star Destroyers, but it's absolutely clear that they'd do a so-so job at properly blockading a world.
For the fact, no less than two ISDs were pursing the Millennium Falcon in ANH, and failed to stop it. One single small ship, from a desolate planet with a limited population all concentrated in a few cities in a small inhabitable area.
And that for one of the most important missions ever.
As we can see, the complete destruction of a world and proper blockading of it does require some hefty amount of preparation and a considerable amount of ships, including some of the most powerful ever made by the Empire, surpassing by far even the Executor-likes in terms of sheer firepower.
One would wonder why the Empire would bother with such a mess if a proper and clean BDZ only require one ISD working its way around a planet under an hour or so, or a bit more.
The 100 TT event was a very focused delivery of energy. For all intents and purposes, it was a massive waste of it, if someone had used to destroy life.
And as I said, going down the absolutist route like you do, when it comes to the eradication of life, is considerably ludicrous.
It just can't work in Star Wars.
You completely failed to address what I wrote about various life forms, notably the Force. It's clear that you just can't win this.
Yes, it was a focused deliverance of energy…offset by the fact that it was
100 teratons, and did not even make a deep enough crater to reach a “deep planetary shelter”.
It is interesting; you have meticulously avoided discussing about what I wrote regarding the various life forms.
Obviously you couldn't gain any ground there so you decided to act like if I never said anything.
I largely demonstrated why molten slag needs to be rationalized. It's not without basis. My entire post before has precisely been about clarifying the whole contradiction from Scavenger Hunt between the objective of reducing a base to molten slag (and not the whole planet), and the real effects.
Yes, because the imperials clearly wanted to scavenge data and collect information from the base.
The book is clear, they wanted to reduce the base to molten slag, and the only failure after the completion of the mission was about not finding any
trace of life once the ruins and remaining buildings were being explored by the troops.
You cannot deny that. So obviously, reducing the base to molten slag cannot be taken literally.
That's the demonstration based on Scavenger Hunt of course.
There's the same going on with Nar Shaddaa.
Nie to see you deny that as well.
All this thread is about demonstrating that after all. We have clear descriptions that contradict the literalistic way, like the age old Star Wars Technical Journal from 95 with its planetary surface turned into smoking debris in a matter of hours, or Hutt Gambit (which has been posted way too many times and which you cannot dismiss, no matter how hard you try to claim Fel to be ignorant of a BDZ is when Han knows what its effects are, in the same book!).
You do realize that “without basis” was
not the primary argument of my post, but rather that you deny that the molten slag quotes are even valid as figurative definitions? What a nice way to twist an essential disclaimer into the focus of your response.
I reacted on the underlined part. You claimed I moved from A to B, A being claiming without basis that "molten slag" was figurative talking.
I definitely played all hands on table and presented all necessary evidence.
Besides, the fact that it is figurative means that it cannot be technically and literally accurate. No surprise you can't understand that, though, since you never ever computed why "to vaporize" didn't have to be taken literally either.
Wrong. I never said the eradication of life was immediate. The BDZ operation takes hours, not the total effects.
You see an inaccuracy because it's your reading comprehension that is at fault.
The total effects have to be committed within an hour for there to be no witnesses, genius. Even if you use a retarded interpretation of the Hutt’s Gambit quote, there are numerous examples of base delta zeros that the Empire did
not want the public to know about, in which everyone died within a day of the attack.
Ah, the old "no witness" claim.
Time has no importance. They don't have to achieve the thing under one hour to avoid witnesses. They have to make sure that any ship which was about to leave the planet or even hyperspace way... doesn't.
They only need plenty of ships.
It's quite funny, since the people you parrot have used Camaas as evidence for BDZ operations (although never described as such btw), and yet there were witnesses. Heck, there even was a planetary shield generator which remained, never destroyed by the Bothans.
Tell me, Smarty One, how you'd BDZ ecumenopolises for example ? How do you avoid witnesses there?
Answer: with a huge fleet.
See, time is totally irrelevant.
And by very canonical statements, what is left of such a bombardment is smoking rubble, blackened corpses and burning buildings.
Let’s see…
Several omniscient sources and statements from Grand Admirals and Supreme Commanders, as well as physical descriptions of what actually occurs in a real BDZ…versus a young Boba Fett imagining the event in his mind. Both are of equal canonical sources.
Safe that it's not Boba Fett, idiot, but Soontir Fel, an Imperial pilot and captain with considerable experience behind him. If Han can know what a BDZ is, Fel surely will.
He's "imagining" as much as he actually knows what he's going to be looking for. It would be quite stupid to claim that as a captain of a warship, he wouldn't know what a BDZ operation is about.
So, going by your own culture of rationalizing rather than dismissing sources on a whim, you are left with two rationalizations…
The other citations are from people who are not providing technical descriptions but trying to impress people they talk to. Not that they actually make much of a literal point. For example, stone running like water is obviously an exaggeration since even under fluid form, it cannot happen. And it could be present in some places only.
Etc.
That Boba Fett’s reaction was in a knee jerk emotional mindset in his mind
It's not Fett.
OR…
That Niathal and Caedus were all fucking around with the reader and deluding themselves with overinflated capabilities, and the omniscient narrators were just fucking with us some more.
I see that you've been taking your information from this thread:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=148366
Most likely TC Pilot's post. Let's quote it here:
TC Pilot, @SDN wrote:
A Base Delta Zero is an order to basically eradicate signs of civilization, and entirely context-sensitive. As far as I know, Caamas has nothing to do with a BDZ, it was just Palpatine contracting out some politically-beneficial genocide, and the completion of a BDZ on Nar Shaddaa wouldn't neccesarily need to be all that thorough.
The Imperial Sourcebook, which is one of the only sources that really treats it in a technical manner, says the order pertains to the destruction of all planetary resources, including population centers, arable land, and fisheries.
That said, there's also plenty of references to capital ships being able to turn planets to "slag" or "molten slag."
"Niathal was very quiet. And she hadn't said a word about Jedi StealthXs wandering around at will in the fleet assembly area. Any commander would have been in a flap about that, unless they thought it was a problem that didn't have their name on it.
I'm not stupid, Admiral.
"Thoughts?" said Caedus, looking her way.
"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." - REVELATION,LEGACY OF THE FORCE
"Daala's Star Destroyers controlled enough power to turn entire planets to slag, but she didn't want to do that here. "Dantooine is too remote for an effective demonstration," she said, "but we can make use of it nonetheless." -JEDI ACADEMY DARK APPRENTICE
"Besany didn't think she'd been crashing around any-where. She was mortified. "Why should I believe you?"
"Because Qiilura has a fragile ecology and we know Skirata is a vengeful little piece of vermin who really could persuade the fleet to melt it to slag. We want to be left alone now. Really alone."
"I see."
"We'll maintain a presence here, by way of insurance," said the Gurlanin. "Not that you'd notice." " - REPUBLIC COMMANDO: TRUE COLOURS
"Niathal was watching the exchange with faint interest. "This is an exquisite ethical argument, but right now I'm more concerned with stopping Corellia repairing an orbital weapon that was capable of taking out the Yuuzhan Vong and that will, if brought back online, ruin the Alliance's entire day."
Omas almost twitched. The power play was luminous in its visibility. "What would you prefer to do, Admiral? We failed to destroy it last time."
"We can reduce a planet to molten slag from orbit. Let's not rule out the possibility of needing to do that to Centerpoint-even if it would be best preserved to defend the Alliance."
"It's populated," said Luke.
"So are warships." " - LEGACY OF THE FORCE BLOODLINES
Pay particular attention to this next one:
"Suddenly scrutiny from the Empire brought al normal life on Nar Shaddaa to a screeching halt. Moff Sarn Shild proclaimed the Hutts' lawless territory would benefit greatly from stricter Imperial control. As a public-relations stunt, Shild was authorized to blockade Nal Hutta and turn the smuggler's moon into molten slag." -Essential Chronology
"Have you ever seen what a Star Destroyer can do to the surface of an unshielded planet? Stones run like water and sand turns to glass. And I have two Star Destroyers at my disposal." -Crimson Empire
None mentions a BDZ, and none provides any information about the duration or quantity and nature of ships involved.
Plus there's always the chance that several of them are figurative.
Funny thing that the one we must pay special attention to also happens to be the one which precisely shows that molten slag, in that book, equals scorched corpses and burning buildings according to Soontir Fel, captain of a warship.
As I said, the second is too vague: it's speech to impress someone, it's obviously not technically accurate, and doesn't say if it's meant to apply to the whole surface.
And of course, no time is given, as usual.
So I comfortably rest my case.
On a sidenote, the wookieepedia page about BDZ is pathetic:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Delta_Zero
Note the various claims of BDZ and also the offsite sources referenced.
To TC Pilot's credit, he corrected the source of the line about the fisheries, since it's found in Galaxy Guide 9.
No man made lava (safe in Saxton's wet tale he sort of managed to cram in some ICS or Inside the World book).
You can’t say “no man made lava” because a source separate from Saxton (a novel) explicitly stated so.
Which one?
Milagro was a very localized event. Crimson Empire is of dubious value. All other quotes fail under the no ship type/number no duration/no mention of a BDZ (which is a very specific procedure), and some of them can also be figurative.
Not that it matters much, since his entire model rests on the idea of firepower scaling down in such a way that the Millennium Falcon's shields shall tank megatons, when we know they can't (they can't protect from TIE firepower indefinitely as seen in ANH, and when the hull is hit, the whole ship isn't disintegrated, yet in the TESB novelization, a mere E-web tripod gun can seriously damage her hull!).
It doesn’t matter what his model rests on, because it isn’t a theory, it’s a canonical statement. What does Traviss’s work rest on? Nothing, she makes shit up. That’s what authors do. They don’t have to base their shit on other people’s shit, they can make it up themselves. You might as well deny the “blackened corpses” imagination because the author’s model
was nothing, he made it up out of nothing.
And you’re wrong anyway, because you can’t rationalize the G canon X wing’s vaporization of cubic meters of the Death Star’s surface other than claiming that they were fireballs (IN SPACE!) when they clearly were not, or claiming that those tiles were really critical parts of the Death Star laced with explosive material that just happened to look the same as everything else and be placed on the surface.
Vaporization of cubic meters of metal... which didn't leave any considerable holes at all.
RSA has tackles this on this X-wing firepower falsehood page.
See? I rationalize. You don't.
I rationalize Rationalize the Death Star novel’s mention of hypermatter and its semi-essential component to the plot. Rationalize Slave Ship. Rationalize “continent destroying hellhounds” or the statement that hypermatter exceeds matter/antimatter in energy potential (Death Star novel). Or the explicit mention, predating Saxton, of hypermatter reactors in the original ICS.
Heck, rationalize Saxton, Great Rationalizer. After all, his reach extends to several authors and several source guides, hardly just two.
I'm going to rationalize in a way that takes into account most of the sources possible. As you may see, if you read this board, including the thread AGAINST the ICS, this very thread or the one I wrote about Black Ice, there's ample proof that we need to go towards a firepower in the terajoule region.
That Slave Ship mentions something about recoil in the giga-tonnage range is unfortunate. Noted, but unfortunate, no matter what.
As for Saxton, I have no interest in trying to rationalize his nonsense. He openly ignored past sources to favour his extreme methodology based on cherry picking and Wong's sophisms.
This is of no interest. It's in such contradiction with the rest of SW that only an imbecile or a priest of his cult couldn't see that there wasn't a single shred of care for coherency. All he was interested in was imposing his vision and destroying anything else.
Why bother?
It's not worth it. Not only because all the silly claims largely come from a few books which can easily be dismissed in light of the much greater evidence against Saxton's claims, but also because I'm not going to bother bridging everythin when such wasn't his intent at all to begin with.
He wasn't reforming anything, he was leading his own revolution, destroying everything else. You can glue back together two fundamentally opposed models. As simple as that.
Note that I don't even know what to do of the Slave Ship quote. I don't see how it is useful to you either, since according to the Saxtonian model, TL bolts are nearly massless. So the real firepower corresponding to a recoil relative to explosions in the giga-tonnage range.
It would still fall short of three orders of magnitude at least regarding the claims of firepower. Let's remember that Venators were given more than 800 teratons of firepower, with ISD obviously being well superior. Being in the near petaton region or already in said region; potentially a million times greater than what Slave Ships alludes to!
See, it doesn't even support the ICS anyway.
JMS once had an interesting idea:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... ?f=4&t=180
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne#Unit_of_force
1 ton/tonne = ~9.8 kilonewtons.
giga-ton = 9.8 e9 kN = 9 e12 N
This would be a measure of the force of the explosion, as the rate of change in gas pressure and volume over time.
There's possibly something to do there, but it's getting complicated, as it's possible one would have to understand giga-tonnage under the context of gas pressure in a barrel.
It's just too much work, and useless to either sides anyway.
Besides, when will you do the rationalization. From my perspective, your sources are outnumbered a great deal.
For one reason: because it's an idiom that's specific in its use and meaning, to Star Wars.
So there is an idiom present only used in Star Wars. Of course, no character ever implies this, and no author ever clarifies it to us. And your evidence that this idiom is so common that even OOU narrators consistently use it all the time is precisely zero.
I demonstrated that it's an idiom, that's all.
Besides, you don't need to be told when one uses an idiom to know it, recognize it, accept it and understand it, so why require this from fictional characters?
It's stupid.
The nuclear winter scenarios actually involved massive wastes of energy over urban centers, and they never involved scenarios of furious bombardment on specific targets such as volcanoes and other seismic fault lines, the former being perfect to cheaply maximize the release of particles in the atmosphere.
So now you’re criticizing professional Cold War plans in the case of a nuclear war, right? After all, they never targeted volcanoes with their megaton nukes in their simulations.
Indeed, they never did. Because they didn't wish to destroy the planet through any possible trick.
Which is why it's considerably tame in light of what can be done to achieve mundicidal efficiency.
He couldn't see a thing because an unilateral bombardment on a planet would result in the body covered with a brown/greyish blanket, with nuclear-like fireballs occasionally piercing through.
With your kiloton weapons, no, not really.
Wut?
After hours of bombardment from several ships, most likely under normal procedures, torpedo spheres?
Fucking aye!
So that Mon Cal could have certainly not seen a thing.
Where did you get that citation from, and could you please provide the entire line?
Forests are burned. Raging fires take care of any forest, as they produce magnitudes of heats which can eat through your average lush jungle.
It goes without saying that numerous nuclear explosions will certainly have some effects on the winds, which are going to nurrish and propagate the fires.
After all, you cannot dump thousands of megatons of firepower into a biosphere and expect walk-in-the-park climatic conditions.
Forests survived K-T. Vegetation will not be “boiled” off the planet.
Of course they did, because no one targeted them with beam weapons, you dolt.
Who the fuck spoke of boiling off the vegetation by the way? I hope you're not going to refer to Camaas? I already covered that one in that thread, in much more detail than anyone on the whole internetz.
Water is poisoned, (industrial) fisheries (also simply called fisheries) are immediately destroyed, nuclear winter finishes off a great deal of the life which needed light to survive, resulting in the death of natural predators.
If this were the case, then the K-T extinction event would have wiped out the oceans, when in reality as many as 75% of aquatic species survived it.
Irrelevant since I don't abide the idea that oceans need to be wiped out.
If they need to be targeted, they would.
Mineral deposits are not worth shooting at unless there's some major exploitation going on.
An entire planet, mantle and core included, are mineral deposits after all.
So there's clearly a limit to how far one can push the idea that such ensembles need to be destroyed.
Of course there’s a limit to reason…that limit being all mines and surface(ish) deposits.
Lol. When your silly absolutism doesn't work anymore, let's claim that you're the one being reasonable, all of sudden.
Fact is, no, mines in Star Wars have no reason to be at the very surface like in old fashioned Western movies.
Read that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremes_o ... bterranean
Yeah, we apes already got that deep into the planet.
Still the surface I guess?
Btw, that debunking was completed within 15 seconds and a grand total of four clicks.
Heck, Dankayo wasn't exactly turned into rubble much, yet it was object to reduction to molten slag.
But we both know you don't give a shit about that fact.
Actually, the “small rebel base” was to be reduced to “slag” (and various quotes suggest that this at least partially did happen literally; such as computer parts being scavenged from portions of slag), but nowhere to my knowledge to “molten slag”.
No you fuckwit. I already gave you the links multiple times.
It's written "molten slag":
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 1&start=60
And good to see you admit, amidst another string of deformations, that this unilateral and terrible world-ending "molten slag" actually turned out to be a very partial slagging, one which didn't prevent either stormtrooper nor the rebel agent from walking on the surface!
Thank you for shooting your own foot, genius.
Where in that picture does it imply that the topsoil has be atomized, and in what universe would this be classified as "dense clouds" or "being to settle" in more time than it takes for two imperial transports to mobilize and deploy troops? It would completely settle within minutes at the most, and "being to settle" from a figurative standpoint within seconds.
Proof?
A dense cloud can simply be something which is very opaque. No need to spin that any further.
The picture shows a dust cloud.
You don't know what a dust cloud is?
A cloud of dust? Invite yourself to explain when all dust clouds have been atomized.
Pardon? I show you a picture of a dust cloud, a cloud of particles of dirt you know, since you don't seem to realize at that point what a cloud of particles kicked off the ground could look like in otherwise normal weather conditions.
That, in contrast to your idea of what happened to Dankayo, which essentially results in no possibility for any "cloud" to form or even settle anytime soon, since it's all been turned into super heated material, possibly plasma, thanks to those copious amounts of teratons...
Hey, do you get it?
When will you actually quote me explaining this simple shit to you and see how you can actually debunk it?
If the part about the clouds settling is not to be taken literally, and just means the ships descended onto the planet and landed quickly, then fine, there's no need to butcher that extract any longer as you do.
Fuck, you never expect anything to be taken literally when it does not suit your needs. Of course, vaporizing half a building is obviously literal, and vaporizing humans when there is vapor can be taken literally as well. So can 30% of the planetary crust being destroyed, even if you can clearly see that such a thing did not happen.
Show me how clouds can form inside what would essentially be a lava world covered with a nice photosphere-like blanket on the outmost orbit if it weren't for the fact that it's mixed with crap, since the old atmosphere has been replaced by a new one made of ground kicked up high in the sky all over the planet, so much that everything on your sides and above you is a complete superhot poisonous fog!
The kind of course that would obviously prevent ZNT-8 from seeing anything through his binoculars.
Address this or retract.
If it's to be taken literally, I've told you that SW ships are seen to land and take off very rapidly, so even moderate clouds of dust lifted up by moderate explosions would still be settling before small deployment ships would land (such as those 50 meters long transports).
So in both cases you're wrong.
Only in a thread like this would you admit that “SW ships are seen to land and take off very rapidly” (read: mobilize troops and land within
seconds). If we were discussing Star Wars ship speeds, you would venomously deny claiming such a thing.
Address the point idiot, instead of lying and whinin'.
Pardon? What? Irrelevant?...
It's Han's thoughts. The words are not meaningless. Otherwise the whole book is.
What an amazing way to take every argument to its extreme conclusion. Obviously,
every word of the book has to matter in every context, or else the entire book must not matter.
The words are there for a reason, douchebag. They serve to carry a meaning, an idea, which otherwise would have remained the sole property of their author's mind.
So yes, when I see a word, I act like if it were printed in the goddamn book, instead of denying their very existence.
Even though the fact that Han thinks it possible that they might decide to burn Bothawui obviously means that Wars firepower is within that order of magnitude (or else there would be no consideration at all), and the “maybe” simply questions whether or not they would actually do it, since, you know, Han can’t read the future.
There is no information given about the time or the real extent of the destruction. It isn't a given that they'd burn the world.
The witnesses, they'd be the people in the two fleets pounding each other, which the Imperial ships were to finish off by surprise.
Just drop the point, you can't win that shit either.
