Star Trek Disruptors vs. Star Wars Disruptors

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Adding to my previous post, when the rifle version of blasters have 10 km ranges, a 100 meter-ranged disruptor pistol would be very short range. It's all comparitive.

They are overpowered blasters, were in the EGWT does it even allude to that?

They are described as using a basically identical operating principle as they describe blasters.

The oversized XCiter and the acutating blaster module process a much greater volume of blaster gas, while the barrel's series of galven cylinders tightly focus the beam, concentrating the blast's high-energy particles.

Truethey use the same fuel BUT Disruptor disintergrate objects at the molecular level. No over powered blaster can do that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

True they use the same fuel BUT Disruptor disintergrate objects at the molecular level.

Wrong.

The mechanism is the same. Blaster gas interacts with energy in an "XCiter" and the high-energy bolt is processed by "galven coils" along the barrel's length. Identical to a blaster's action. It uses the same principle to work and the same gas involved. It appears to be a blaster on steroids, sacrificing accuracy and range and ammunition efficiency for maximum power.

No over powered blaster can do that.

Circular logic. They don't explicitly say they are overpowered blasters, thus they are not. Disruptors break down objects at the molecular level, thus overpowered blasters are not disruptors.

Injecting enough energy to vaporize a cubic meter of durasteel or whatever certainly counts as "breaking down at the molecular level." Atomizing substances generally does that.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Again I said disruptors aren't overpowered blasters. They do more than what larger more powerful blasters(rifles and E-Web) are capable of.

Direct Quote from the EGWT:

Among the most controversial and reviled hand weapons in the galaxy, disruptors are energy weapons whose blasts are so powerful that they break down objects at the molecular level, leaving only a smoking pile of ash.


These small handheld pistols can disintegrate a one-meter by one-meter durasteel plate up to half a meter thick or penetrate force fields, personal battle armor, and vehicle and starship hull plating -- they are virtually unstoppable.

Based on that It doesn't seem to have the characteristics of a some of the heavier blasters.

Wrong.

The mechanism is the same. Blaster gas interacts with energy in an "XCiter" and the high-energy bolt is processed by "galven coils" along the barrel's length. Identical to a blaster's action. It uses the same principle to work and the same gas involved. It appears to be a blaster on steroids, sacrificing accuracy and range and ammunition efficiency for maximum power.

That's what I meant, all the principles are the same, BUT based on the quote from the EGWT, it much more. It somewhat a weapon that fires bolts that share the characteristics of a lightsaber ("they are virtually unstoppable") but it also disintergrates objects molecularly.

Circular logic. They don't explicitly say they are overpowered blasters, thus they are not. Disruptors break down objects at the molecular level, thus overpowered blasters are not disruptors.

Injecting enough energy to vaporize a cubic meter of durasteel or whatever certainly counts as "breaking down at the molecular level." Atomizing substances generally does that.

I know that but some ppl are stating that they are. Larger Blasters can be stopped by certain types of armor (blast doors, etc). Based on the "virtuallly unstoppable" quote, Disruptors are like lightsabers in th respect that they both can disintergrate/cut through almost anything.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Again I said disruptors aren't overpowered blasters. They do more than what larger more powerful blasters(rifles and E-Web) are capable of.

Post proof or retract. Tell me what you think they're capable of any why.

The disruptor is superior in short-range destructive firepower to a E-11 Blaster carbine, hence the conclusion Royal Guardsman Kir Kanos was armed with a disruptor pistol as opposed to a blaster pistol.

Additionally, the whole point is a disruptor tweaks the mechanism of the blaster to deliver energy even greater then rifle versions at the cost of range, recycling rate, and ammunition efficiency

Based on that It doesn't seem to have the characteristics of a some of the heavier blasters.

Don't you understand? It's basically the same principle, but it is heavily modified to make a specialty weapon. The disruptor, by description is essentially a blaster with very high firepower and penetration but shitty range, shitty recycling rate, and it burns through a power pack in five to fifteen shots (based on the disruptor) whereas blaster rifles and pistols easily have one hundred or more shots per pack.

That's what I meant, all the principles are the same, BUT based on the quote from the EGWT, it much more. It somewhat a weapon that fires bolts that share the characteristics of a lightsaber ("they are virtually unstoppable") but it also disintergrates objects molecularly.

You can't use the firepower levels to prove that in principle, it isn't much different then a specialty supercharged blaster. If I fire a modern NOVA laser at a piece of matter, it will generally vaporize it, and thus break it down at the molecular level.

I know that but some ppl are stating that they are. Larger Blasters can be stopped by certain types of armor (blast doors, etc).

And heavier weapons are not as limited, for we know heavy rifles, E-Webs, and others can damage unshielded starships fatally. What is your point? This just shows my point they're superpowered blasters. The firepower level doesn't disprove the "blaster" bit.

The Death Star II superlaser operates on similar mechanisms and principles to Han Solo's DL-44 Blaster pistol. The fact that pistols can't fire through special "magnetically sealed" doors doesn't affect that.

Based on the "virtuallly unstoppable" quote, Disruptors are like lightsabers in th respect that they both can disintergrate/cut through almost anything.

Show me where a lightsabre fires nice blaster-style energy bolts and also vaporizes cubic meters worth of heavy exotic metal. Just asking.

[Boba Fett]

Don't be too quick to roll those eyes.

In the real world, it's perfectly legal for a soldier to shoot an enemy soldier in the head using a jacketed bullet, but it's a war crime for that soldier to use a hollow-point bullet to do the same thing.

Ahem...if you use the jacketed bullets he have approx. + 5% chance on surviving...That means it's humanic?!

*instantly starts uber eye rolling*

You're making me dizzy.

However, yes, it is true. Hollow-point bullets are banned in military service as cruel and inhumane instruments of war, whereas metal-jacketed bullets are allowed in military service as gentle and humane instruments of war. (Okay, there was a bit of sarcasm there, but bear with me.)

Which weapons are considered "acceptable" by a society depends on a number of factors, and very often these factors have nothing at all to do with cold logic and everything to do with misperception and knee-jerk emotional responses.

Other historical/real world examples:

Using tear gas is illegal in armed conflicts, as using "any" chemical agent against the enemy, even an agent that will result in fewer fatalities than if you had to shoot the enemy full of bullets, constitutes chemical warfare and thus the use of a tear gas grenade can be considered a war crime and justify dropping nukes on the enemy's cities.

When the Americans entered WW1, and brought their slide-action shotguns into trench warfare, there was serious talk on the German side, complete with newspaper articles, of shooting out of hand any Americans caught using such barbarous weapons, weapons unworthy of use by the soldiers of a civilized nation.

The British fought tooth and nail to gain an exception to the Geneva Conventions for their .455 caliber revolvers. The .455 revolvers could be loaded with flat-tip rounds that had no jacket over that lead tip. Marketed commercially as man-stoppers, which they undoubtedly were, their primary "military" use was shooting enormous holes in tribesmen in the colonies. The British finally had to give in and remove the man-stopper bullets from their military inventory, as the risk was too great that civilized soldiers might "accidentally" be shot at.

Then go a bit farther back to the particular Papal Bull that, if I'm remembering it correctly, threatened automatic excommunication to anyone who used an inhuman and barbarous weapon like the crossbow against honest Christian warriors. On the other hand, using it against godless heretics and Saracens was perfectly acceptable. It was generally believed at the time that Richard Lionheart got exactly what he deserved when he got shot through the armpit by a crossbow bolt and died thereof, as he was an enthusiastic employer of crossbowmen despite the ban and used the weapon himself. (Of course, the intrepid crossbowman was himself skinned alive by Richard's mercenaries for doing that deed, in spite of Richard's deathbed pardon.)

On a more recent and less lethal note, under German law, tear gas sprays employing CN and CS gas mixes are legal for adults to use as self defense weapons without a license, whereas pepper sprays, which have fewer potentially dangerous long term effects, are not (except against attacking dogs). The simple reason is that as a relatively diffuse spray, the CN and CS gas sprayers are not technically considered a weapon, whereas the directed stream of a pepper spray device is considered a weapon and thus requires comprehensive licensing.

It is all just a matter of what society finds acceptable and what society finds unacceptable. In a Star Trek context, the disruptor used by the mad collector who faked Data's destruction to add the android to his collection was a banned weapon and considered too cruel to use. Yet its actual effects appeared trivially different from those of a Federation phaser or Klingon disruptor.

The real, behind-the-scenes, reason for Star Wars disruptors being officially banned is obvious: blasters are powerful enough, and no one in a position of power really wants low-life criminals and disgruntled employees of the Imperial Postal Service wandering around with handguns that make blasters look like water pistols.

The last part is OK!

All the other parts are still laughable!!!

I'm not talking about tear-gas or pepper-gas...

I was talking about a blaster and a disruptor.

Beside that I still think that every lethal weapon is inhuman. But we need them sometimes....