| Subject: Re: Romulan - Imperial scenarios |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:22:12 11/09/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: ipd54b193f.free.wxs.nl/213.75.25.63
In reply to:
His Divine Shadow (the other one)
's message, "Re: Romulan - Imperial scenarios" on 20:11:58 11/09/02 Sat
>>>And you should know a laser does not glow in space,
>>>like this one did.
>>
>>The quote does not say it glowed! It doesn't even say
>>it is visible!
>
>*sigh*
>Then why does it say "A bright red bar of light" in
>the book?
>
As far as I can see it doesn't. On page 242 it says...
"The laser beam, a meter thick,flashed from the depths of space to strike Tsavong Lah's worldship.
It hit with the force of a turbolaser battery, pouring damage onto the worldship surface, superheating the yorik coral there, scarring deeply into it.
Less than a second later, a void materialized beneath it, swallowing all the damage. The void remained there as damage continued to rain down. Then, a minute later the laser attack ceased, and the void disappeared."
That is the exact discription of the attack, and I can see no reference to the beam being any colour. Is it stated elsewhere?
>>Can you provide the e-mail script? The implication
>>from the quote is that it was NOT a turbolaser, since
>>it says that it struck with force 'like' a
>turbolaser.
>
>There is no such implication, not even remotely
>implicated, you should know that laser battery is a
>colloquial term, stop playing semantics games.
>
I agree that 'laser' is a colloquial term for a turbolaser, but we also know that there are 'real' lasers. This beam does not look or act like any turbolaser we have ever seen, and instead looks and acts like a 'real' laser. Now as I said, if you can provide the e-mail or reference where the author says it is a turbolaser, then I will accept that.
>>Again, you are thinking of the wrong example, I was
>>talking of the first TIE encounter, when they approach
>>the DS. They don't use the turret guns, they use the
>>forward guns and the range is way less than visual.
>>This is confirmed during the escape from Tatooine,
>>where Star Destroyers are clearly visible, but still
>>out of their weapons range. In TESB, the Falcon was
>>clearly in visual range of the SSD but was still out
>>of weapon range.
>
>In TESB they didn't want to kill the MF, in TESB they
>speak of Ozzel dropping out too close for the system,
>which wasn't good since they wanted to bombard Hoth
>from afar.
>
I'm not talking about Hoth, but instead the the escape from cloud city.
>As for the ANH escape, why do you think they want to
>try and kill them? I don't see any evidence, only
>assumptions so contradictions can be manufactured.
I didn't say they wanted to kill them, but the fact is, they were stated to be nearly in range when the MF was within visual range.
>
>As for the first encounter, there was never any firing
>then.
>
>As for the DS approach, why the heck do you think
>anti-capship guns could target fighters from afar?
>Do you expect 16" guns on battleships to be able to
>hit fighters?
>
I didn't say anything about the DS. I was stating that the guns on the Falcon, were out of range of the TIE they were chasing, even though the TIE was easily visable from the MFs cockpit.
>>I wouldn't doubt an SSD is capable of 'planetary
>>disruption. If each turbolaser was 'just' 50MT
>>(personally I would rate TLs in 100-200MT range, but
>>I'm just making a point here),
>> and there were 250
>>turbolasers, the SSD would fire 12.5 GT per salvo.
>>That is plenty to cause massive planetary disruption.
>
>Ok, you better put down the bong because you apparenly
>have about zero knowledge of what 12.5GT would do.
>It won't do anything near what you think, it could
>take out say most of los-angeles pretty nicely if it
>was a bomb, but it sure won't cause any planetary
>disruption(the quote refers to a gravity weapon that
>pulls on planets and disrupts them).
>
I don't think you have any idea how big 12.5GT is. You are aware that the largest nuke ever exploded by man was 'just' 50 MT. Are you aware that warheads on a modern Trident II missile are 100KT. Are you further aware that the Hiroshima bomb was just 16KT? Given those figures, we can see that 12.5GT is equivilent to 250 of the largest nukes mankind has ever exploded, equivilent to 125,000 modern Trident II warheads and equivelent to 781,250 Hiroshima sized bombs. Have a look at this site (http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/hew/hew/Usa/Weapons/Nukeforce.html). It shows an estimate of the current US nuclear stockpile. If you add up the total yields, you can see that the total yield from all US missiles and bombs comes to around 2.9GT. In other words, 12.5GT is 4.3 times the ENTIRE US nuclear armament. 12.5GT is a very big bang, and would do more than just destroy LA.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 