StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:
I'm not on Picard's back 24/7, and I don't double check everything he types, genius.
Which you obviously do to me. Why, I'm flattered.
Fine then.
Why is it so important to know when the claims were made?
That is an excellent question. Maybe you should ask yourself?
You made it a point of importance before anything else, even before reading what was claimed over there, like for example at RSA's (including all the points about
Hutt Gambit).
I said he made good points. That is all.
Saxton and Wong make shitty points relentlessly, but ultimately, that their claims come from SDN or SWTC has little importance considering how far they spread and how they're stupidly repeated.
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.
Your inability to grasp sarcasm makes me want to gaffaw.
Oh, here we go again with that sarcasm of yours.
Whenever your self righteous ass is banned, it's obviously from a group of "cretinous" mods.
I have definitely proved that, and I think all people here agree. Essentially, it doesn't even matter if SDN or SBC people agree, because you're at SFJN. So even if I were totally wrong from SDN's and SBC's perspective, it doesn't matter, because at SFJN, as long as you claim residence here, you'll have to convince SFJN's plebe, no one else.
As I also said to you elsewhere, the main difference is that here, you're allowed to defend yourself.
But every ban that I receive is righteously applied by mods you disagree with half of the time.
Cry me a river.
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.
I don't give a fuck if Abaham Lincoln argued your claims. Defend them yourself, don't link them to someone else's page that I'm supposed to have read.
Did.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is where SWST's post begins to have something to do with the real subject.
Of course, it does not mean he's honest now.
Unsurprisingly, your message contains no new evidence. It's merely baiting, red herrings, denial and rebooting claims.
I also note that you leave entire sections of my posts out, precisely those you can't even hope to attack. I take your complete concession on all these points you leave out, which include complete and undisputable demonstration of the very limited scope of a BDZ's applied destruction.
Page 16 and 17, especially the 17th one, contain all you need to know thus far. Unless, of course, you wish to reboot the entire debate, again.
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?
So then answer what you think the reasonable limit for "all natural resources" is.
Did. Read my posts.
You seem to think that, because harvesting a planet core is a ridiculous literalism of the quote, counting natural oil deposits somehow also passes the reasonable limit. Of course, to you the answer is to assume that the quote simply means "destroy arable land and some big tunnels".
I defined the reasonable limit. In fact, I don't have to waste time on this, as I dealt with the quotes, each at a time, and proved what a BDZ is, which is certainly nothing like you claim.
You're free to read my posts.
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.
Yet other text mentions all natural resources, and fisheries are natural resources. This isn't that difficult to grasp.
1. You're conflating different sources. This is dishonest.
2. I addressed the source (without an s) that mentions fisheries. I proved that no one needs to take it as natural fisheries. Since we have the choice of interpretation, no one can use it as evidence.
3. I have also covered the part about natural resources. Not only they're actually attached to artificial assets, but the other way to look at them through a literalistic lens is what drives us to impossible ends because the whole planet would have to erased from spacetime. What I denounced was how the wankers conveniently stuck the cursor on the scale of literalism in a most arbitrary way, sufficient to warrant teratons of firepower. Of course, the demonstration is that if you're actually honest about the literalism (and there's no question of anything being reasonable here, especially in Star Wars), you have to make the planet disappear. No matter how hard you try to spin this fact, you'll always fail. Your attempt at another trick in calling me unreasonable in my demonstration about literalism (a demonstration RSA had already done against Ossus, as I referred to) was and still is pure hypocrisy and sick.
As I said, after looking at all the quotes and dealing with them, one at a time, I isolated the core meaning of a BDZ. Not only that, but we now know that Caamas is officially considered a BDZ, yet the effects are nowhere what are claimed by Saxton and Wong.
This is what finally closes the debate.
Is it so hard to grasp?
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.
Base Delta Zero is not meant to be precision bombardment, it's intentional overkill.
Actually, I demonstrated that a BDZ aims at firing at very specifics assets of production and population areas of a given population density.
Most standard bombardment would not attempt to destroy all life and natural resources, because doing so is completely counterproductive in all but a few circumstances.
I debunked the "all life". It's contradicted in the same source it's picked from.
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.
Oil deposits are of little importance because they have fusion [and hypermatter] and other more efficient energy sources.
Unexploited oil deposits won't be targeted anyway.
But in the case of a world wide devastation resulting from bombardment, you don't think that they would turn to more primitive energies?
They who? Survivors? You don't think they'll have better things to attend to rather than trying to build a proper oil harvester and oil refinery?
Geez.
And any civilization that is still locked into using oil deposits -before any bombardment happens- as one of its prime power sources will be easy cake for any space army in SW.
Are you postulating that Base Delta Zero's only work against more advanced civilizations, but are magically impossible whenever they also use oil deposits as natural resources?
No.
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.
No, really, it would not. Why don't you go ask a climate scientist if the Cold War nuclear arsenal could wipe out all aquatic life? Or even an asteroid the size of Rhode Island shattered into billions of pieces? I'll watch as you debate with him that your theory is right because "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."
Translation: your point has literally no evidence or scientific backing at all. You just make vague analogies to oil leaks and vague, unsupported claims that you attack will kill aquatic wildlife without explaining how you know this.
I'm beyond wasting my time on this. It's a subsidiary of the "all life" argument which isn't valid.
Caamas and what would really happen to Nar Shaddaa are quite fine examples of BDZs.
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.
And Base Delta Zeroes don't destroy natural resources or anything...
See above.
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,
Yes, you just
love taking every argument to its logical extreme.
This is nothing more than the method used by you and other wankers. I'm merely using your style, with 200% more honesty as I don't decide to limit the destruction to some arbitrary parameters so that it
may look plausible enough (clue: it doesn't, even when limiting the range at teratons).
Since "all natural resources" can't mean "mineral resources at the planet's core",
It can. In fact, it does.
No need to go for the core besides, you can already aim for the mantle. It's already too stupid, but hey, that's your logic after all.
... this must mean that it doesn't refer to TREES or FISHERIES either.
When you can reach down to the mantle or the core, I don't think trees or wild fish growing naturally would matter much at this point. Dontcha think? :)
Because "all sapient life" can't mean exotic energy beings in the planet's deep mantle, it simply means "most people in big population centers".
If that's so, then you don't need to fire at the whole surface. You merely need to shoot at the cities. Make up your mind.
The shockwaves can actually cause much damage, as proved by the tremors which caused damage to Echo base.
No they do not, as disproven by real life and the design of nuclear bunkers. You clearly seem to think that Echo Base was kilometers below the surface.
No, it wasn't, and it was already getting wrecked by low level shots. You have quite failed to realize that seismic waves don't stop. Oh but wait, stupid me, you were the one claiming that seismic waves wouldn't travel (kilometers) down.
lol
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.
Oh yes, a school building can be damaged by an earthquake (in these cases, far more energetic than "kilotons" of tnt). This just
must mean that a space age military bunker can be damaged by kiloton releases through kilometers of rock.
I didn't say a school building, I said a building.
Since I allowed high kilotons/low megatons of direct energy into the ground and since I didn't consider bunkers to be buried many kilometers down (the one at Dankayo obviously wasn't, considering how the rebel agent reached the surface very quickly after the shooting stopped), I'd rather appreciate you stopped dicing my sentences and cobbling some monstrosities together for your next batch of strawmen.
We don't even know if the structures will be deformed or not.
But of course,
you do.
If you remember (you don't), I said that structures could be deformed. I didn't say it would be the main mean of destruction. It's quite a thing how you've been insisting on this for
pages literally, while it's just peripheral to the topic in fact. But since you can't win on the meat of the topic, I bet that's all your left to grind your teeth on.
Everybody hired and probably payed a handsome profit to build nuclear bunker were frauds whose bunkers would easily be collapsed by kiloton detonations, even if they were kilometers below ground (which they weren't).More later.
The bunkers you're talking about aren't meant to be directly hit, you know.
Oh, "more later"? No, please, too much shit already.
I mean it. You're uselessly stretching this thread because of your disgusting methods.
Covered cases, and closed:
- Proper analysis of each quotation, without dishonest cherry picking and agglomeration.
- Dankayo (Scavenger Hunt). Low level of destruction.
- Caamas (many sources). Confirmed BDZ, low level of destruction.
- Nar Shaddaa (Hutt Gambit). Confirmed BDZ, expected low level of destruction; didn't happen, but we know what it would have looked like (and Han's words are contradicted).
- "all life" argument (related to Hutt Gambit notably).
- "natural resources" argument (the dishonesty of Saxton/Wong's selective literalism-based method).
- "fisheries" argument. No need to go for wild fish.
- "arable land". Real definition dramatically reduces the number of crops which would be targeted.
- "population centers". Don't represent the entirety of the population.
- many other side-arguments.
