StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am curious as to how the LAAT/i missiles could appreciably blow even the slightest hole in the hull of the Core Ships if they were not within an order of magnitude of the stated yield--we know that hull cladding can shrug off fusion missiles with ease.

Also, if they possess armor on say...shuttles that can take weapons fire orders of magnitude more than that of, say, the LAAT/i or the AT-TE, why don't they use heavier armor on terrestrial or aerial vehicles if it'd be highly protective to the weapons around?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I am curious as to how the LAAT/i missiles could appreciably blow even the slightest hole in the hull of the Core Ships if they were not within an order of magnitude of the stated yield--we know that hull cladding can shrug off fusion missiles with ease.

They didn't. From the AOTC novelization:

AOTC novelization wrote:"Those Trade Federation starships are taking off! Target them quickly!"

"They're too big, Master," Anakin replied. "The groundtroopers will have to take them out."

We saw their rockets exploding against the hulls of the Tradefed coreships but we did not see penetration. They needed the SPHA-Ts for that, using focused beam weapons which presumably dumped most of their energy into the interior of the ship.

Also, if they possess armor on say...shuttles that can take weapons fire orders of magnitude more than that of, say, the LAAT/i or the AT-TE, why don't they use heavier armor on terrestrial or aerial vehicles if it'd be highly protective to the weapons around?

Who said it can? Enormously energetic weapons in space can be dealt with through shielding and armour which is very good at handling radiative heating. However, take that same armour and put into a terrestrial environment where high-yield energy releases tend to be converted into high-pressure zones and shockwaves, and you end up with severe mechanical impact.

Darth Wong wrote:We saw their rockets exploding against the hulls of the Tradefed coreships but we did not see penetration. They needed the SPHA-Ts for that, using focused beam weapons which presumably dumped most of their energy into the interior of the ship.

And I suppose we chalk up the Techno Union hits to Anakin's precise instructions and volatile targets like "fuel cells"?

Hmm...another reason to stop stalling on buying the Prequel novelisations.

Darth Wong wrote:Who said it can? Enormously energetic weapons in space can be dealt with through shielding and armour which is very good at handling radiative heating. However, take that same armour and put into a terrestrial environment where high-yield energy releases tend to be converted into high-pressure zones and shockwaves, and you end up with severe mechanical impact.

Ahhh, I didn't consider that.

Darth Wong wrote: As for the thermal detonator, that still makes no sense, and the word of the EU alone is insufficient to force us to accept something which makes no sense. No explosive device onscreen has demonstrated such characteristics.

No explosive has, but I think seismic charges come close with their visual effects (They aren't strictly an "explosive" though. Nor do I suspect that thermal detonators - at least the kinds described in some of the EU - are neccesarily, either.)

Databank, EU wrote:The heart of a thermal detonator's explosive power is the compact sphere of volatile baradium found inside a thermite shell.

Databank, Films wrote:A thermal detonator is a compact yet powerful explosive device contained is a small, silvery sphere. Once activated, an internal fusion reaction starts within the sphere which eventually grows into a deadly explosion.

(emphases mine)

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:We saw their rockets exploding against the hulls of the Tradefed coreships but we did not see penetration. They needed the SPHA-Ts for that, using focused beam weapons which presumably dumped most of their energy into the interior of the ship.

And I suppose we chalk up the Techno Union hits to Anakin's precise instructions and volatile targets like "fuel cells"?

That, and the fact that Techno Union ships are puny compared to TradeFed core ships. Not to mention the fact that they were obviously designed for something other than military purposes. Why else would they put volatile fuel cells on the outside of their ship?

Hmm...another reason to stop stalling on buying the Prequel novelisations.

You don't have them?

Darth Wong wrote:Who said it can? Enormously energetic weapons in space can be dealt with through shielding and armour which is very good at handling radiative heating. However, take that same armour and put into a terrestrial environment where high-yield energy releases tend to be converted into high-pressure zones and shockwaves, and you end up with severe mechanical impact.

Ahhh, I didn't consider that.

You're certainly not the only one.

airBiscuit wrote:Sounds to me like those kT yield values are pretty excessive. I am lost on the source of this information. What exactly did it say? I think if you compare the atomic bomb to these figures, you can see how ridiculous this would be, given what we observe in the movies. Even the large explosion of the Shield generator on Hoth had more to do with the generator itself, than the firepower that destroyed it. It was a secondary effect, and even that was not 200kT going off. That would have destroyed the Hoth base and the attacking Empire landing force in one swoop, I should think.

KT yield weaponry is not nominally deployed; rather GJ range yields are (see ICS). However at Hoth they were destroying a mile wide, 500m tall building that generated enough power to hold off an entire squadron of ships indefinably. Do you really believe throwing the equivalent of pebbles at it will do much?.

I 'should think' doesn’t cut it either. General Veers in the lead walker was over 17Km from the generator when they destroyed it, that is how the explosion radius is deduced.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Megatons; kilotons; etc. are measurements of energy. A megaton is equal to ~4.19 x 10^15 J.

Okay, taking a step back and getting some present day numbers to work with. I will leave nuclear explosions alone since it has been pointed out that they represent a special case of explosive yield in their radiothermal effects and their directedness. Also, since their explosions occur in a matter of nanoseconds, they have an unprecedented rate of expansion compared to any amount of TNT could could stack up.

Let's look at penetrators, the other side of the argument. Current high velocity penetrator rounds on tanks, ostensibly the APFSDS kind, are rated at a muzzle energy of 18-20 MJ. DARPA is researching into new forms of round acceleration that could bring it up to around 30MJ in the form of a rail gun. Not only that, there is reasearch into naval weapons that could replace even the use of missiles, which would provide energies on the order of 60 to even 300 MJ. I wonder if anybody can appreciate just how powerful this is destructively. It is speculated that a naval rail gun could propel a shell up to 250 nautical miles! Tests have demostrated that rounds of this sort, by kinetic energy alone, could make a ground crater 10 feet wide by 10 feet deep, with round penetration of 40 feet. Now that sounds like a lot of dirt getting kicked up! (and this is the stuff that's declassified, mind you)

So, what does this translate to in terms of a kT yield, assuming all forms of energy being equal? Take the above conversion of megatons to Joules. 200 kT would be one fifth of a megaton. So one fifth of 4.19x10^15 J would be 8.38 x 10^14 J, or 8.38 x 10^8 MJ. If we look at a hypothetical naval rail gun with a 300 MJ muzzle energy, which is 15 times what the M1 Abrams can dish out (think about that), we would be able to convert this to a yield of 7.16 x 10^-5 kT. You saw that right, that's a minus five. So, can we really have suspension of disbelief for ground based weapons having 13 orders of magnitude yield difference in the form of kinetic, non-explosive energy, when we know that a 21st century naval rail gun would probably bury a wheel droid in a 10 foot crater?

I guess we have to fall back on the variable yield argument that has been going back and forth, but why would anyone be holding back if it meant victory to do otherwise?

[curious about my sources? I have two of them. Very interesting reading, BTW.]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1& ... pdf&e=7415

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9& ... pdf&e=7415

airBiscuit wrote:[
Okay, taking a step back and getting some present day numbers to work with. I will leave nuclear explosions alone since it has been pointed out that they represent a special case of explosive yield in their radiothermal effects and their directedness. Also, since their explosions occur in a matter of nanoseconds, they have an unprecedented rate of expansion compared to any amount of TNT could could stack up.

And the fact that they are unidirectional. Beam weapons and a number of missile/projectile weapons in the SW universe are focused energy releases.

Let's look at penetrators, the other side of the argument. Current high velocity penetrator rounds on tanks, ostensibly the APFSDS kind, are rated at a muzzle energy of 18-20 MJ. DARPA is researching into new forms of round acceleration that could bring it up to around 30MJ in the form of a rail gun. Not only that, there is reasearch into naval weapons that could replace even the use of missiles, which would provide energies on the order of 60 to even 300 MJ.

And a projectile weapon is relevant to a beam weapon... how? Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a physical projectile and a beam weapon.

I wonder if anybody can appreciate just how powerful this is destructively.

300 MJ is equal to nearly 160 pounds of TNT (assuming 100% efficiency), or .0716 tons. A lightsaber puts out as much, or almost so, and blasters aren't that much less powerful. What's your point, exactly?

It is speculated that a naval rail gun could propel a shell up to 250 nautical miles!

First: What does range have to do with the energy output/firepower of the weapon?

Second: This should only further illustrate the difference between a beam weapon and a projectile (that is, most projectiles are subject to ballistic trajectories - blasters are more or less "line of sight")

Tests have demostrated that rounds of this sort, by kinetic energy alone, could make a ground crater 10 feet wide by 10 feet deep, with round penetration of 40 feet.

wow, a crater a bit over three meters in diamater. So? Did you notice that also typically results from delivering its energy all at once (IE when the projectile impacts?) Again, how is this relevant to beam weapons (particuarily ones that have a sustained effect?)

Now that sounds like a lot of dirt getting kicked up! (and this is the stuff that's declassified, mind you)

And so? I'm assuming there is supposed to be some relevance to the discussion at hand in all this.

So, what does this translate to in terms of a kT yield, assuming all forms of energy being equal?

It means you don't know the differences between a physical impact and an energy beam?

Take the above conversion of megatons to Joules. 200 kT would be one fifth of a megaton. So one fifth of 4.19x10^15 J would be 8.38 x 10^14 J, or 8.38 x 10^8 MJ. If we look at a hypothetical naval rail gun with a 300 MJ muzzle energy, which is 15 times what the M1 Abrams can dish out (think about that), we would be able to convert this to a yield of 7.16 x 10^-5 kT. You saw that right, that's a minus five.

Before you start getting all hyper, you did notice that several of us (Mike and myself and Darth Physbod, to name a few) have already noted that yields as high as you're claiming are not common in ground battles unless thre is a presence of especially durable or heavy targets (planetary shield genrators or enemy bases, starships, etc.)

Secondly, remind me how the differences between a beam weapon and a projectile do not apply here.

So, can we really have suspension of disbelief for ground based weapons having 13 orders of magnitude yield difference in the form of kinetic, non-explosive energy, when we know that a 21st century naval rail gun would probably bury a wheel droid in a 10 foot crater?

We can because you apparently are not listening to anything anyone else is saying (For example, in the case of missiles they can easiyl be variable yield, as well as differences between beam and projectile weapons, the ways in which energy is delivered and to what kind of targets, etc.)

I guess we have to fall back on the variable yield argument that has been going back and forth, but why would anyone be holding back if it meant victory to do otherwise?

Again, have you even bothered paying attention to what anyone else is saying, or are you just talking to listen to yourself?

[curious about my sources? I have two of them. Very interesting reading, BTW.]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1& ... pdf&e=7415

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9& ... pdf&e=7415

Whoa, a handful of google searches. Impressive.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Databank, EU wrote:The heart of a thermal detonator's explosive power is the compact sphere of volatile baradium found inside a thermite shell.

Databank, Films wrote:A thermal detonator is a compact yet powerful explosive device contained is a small, silvery sphere. Once activated, an internal fusion reaction starts within the sphere which eventually grows into a deadly explosion.

(emphases mine)

Yes, and so? What about the part about "thermite?" (which hints at an incendiary-like function), or the "expanding particle field" from a so called "fusion reaction" (generated from the "volatile baradium", no less) apparently lasts longer than what one would expect from a normal explosive?

If you go by the OT VD, There are TD's that have variable blast intensities (which again hints at a degrgee of controllability that reinforcese a "unconventional" nature to the weapon) and those that can serve as fragmentation devices that have "plasmic cores" (what would be the point of a fragmentation effect in a thermal weapon?)

Further, did you notice I intimated that only SOME types of thermal detonators (those described in the EU) would be non-explosive?Some others may very well be (just as some coudl be fragmentary, as silly a notion as that seems for what is implied to be a device using a thermal damage mechanism, much less a fusion reaction.) as well as having other designs/applications (if you've noticed, its something of the same logic applied to *other* SW weapons.)

Connor MacLeod wrote:And the fact that they are unidirectional. Beam weapons and a number of missile/projectile weapons in the SW universe are focused energy releases.

I'm sure you meant "omni"-directional, going in all directions. No argument there.

And a projectile weapon is relevant to a beam weapon... how? Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a physical projectile and a beam weapon.

You can't dismiss destructive energies out of hand simply because of its initial state. It's well known that hyperkinetic energies result in superheating effects, much like you would see from a beam weapon. Materials literally liquefy or vaporize when put into contact with such high KE values. I doubt you would be arguing that blasters don't also do damage through superheating effects. Energy is energy. It can be converted from one form to another (heat, kinetic work, light, x-rays, etc). The whole question is how efficiently it can be done.

300 MJ is equal to nearly 160 pounds of TNT (assuming 100% efficiency), or .0716 tons. A lightsaber puts out as much, or almost so, and blasters aren't that much less powerful. What's your point, exactly?

A lightsaber would put this effect out, but much more slowly. What's being missed here is a discussion of power, as opposed to energy. Power, being energy over time, introduces the issue of shock or explosiveness. Are you suggesting that a lightsaber striking a rock would show the same effect as 160 pounds of TNT stuffed into it? I don't think so. Surely, the lightsaber can cut into the rock and take it apart, but over a matter of many seconds or minutes. 160 pounds of TNT will shatter it in a fraction of a second. That's where power comes in, which is why the connection of kilotons of TNT to joules of energy seems a specious connection to make, even as there is a conversion for it.

It's just like the point someone made earlier about the blowtorch. It can cut a tank apart as well as any weapon, but you're not going to see it happen in a sudden violent moment. The energy put out by the blowtorch is cumulative over time and is sufficient to overcome the resistive properties of the material, but I won't measure its effects in kilotons of TNT.

It is speculated that a naval rail gun could propel a shell up to 250 nautical miles!

First: What does range have to do with the energy output/firepower of the weapon?

It's mainly for illustration on just what a megajoule really means in terms of what it imparts. I get the feeling that people are throwing kilotons and gigajoules around like it's everyday battlefield stuff and not something approaching armageddon-like destructive power. It's not to be taken lightly.

Second: This should only further illustrate the difference between a beam weapon and a projectile (that is, most projectiles are subject to ballistic trajectories - blasters are more or less "line of sight").

This would be true, assuming that blasters followed the properties of lasers, but there can be many arguments (based on observation) as to why this wouldn't be the case. It's possible that blasters are semi-ballistic. But I don't think this distinction is really relevant to this discussion.

wow, a crater a bit over three meters in diamater. So? Did you notice that also typically results from delivering its energy all at once (IE when the projectile impacts?) Again, how is this relevant to beam weapons (particuarily ones that have a sustained effect?)

Since when did beam weapons have a sustained effect? Blaster bolt strike the target explosively, from anything I have observed in the movies. These aren't lasers and they're not sustained beams. They're bolts of energy. And that energy is imparted somewhat kinetically, and probably more through heat. The key is that the heat conversion is inherent to the bolt and doesn't rely on muzzle velocity for superheating effects, making it more efficient than kinetic penetrators in that respect.

Now that sounds like a lot of dirt getting kicked up! (and this is the stuff that's declassified, mind you)

And so? I'm assuming there is supposed to be some relevance to the discussion at hand in all this.

So why aren't we seeing anything akin to this kind of effect at the kiloton level (10^6 to 10^8 MJ worth) in the movies? Are you saying that all of this just becomes heat and just seeps into the ground? Have you heard of steam explosions? Explosive vaporization?

So, what does this translate to in terms of a kT yield, assuming all forms of energy being equal?

It means you don't know the differences between a physical impact and an energy beam?

On the contrary, I know that the energy imparted from either can be converted to both heat and physical work. There are some differences, mind you, but not several orders of magnitude difference.

Before you start getting all hyper, you did notice that several of us (Mike and myself and Darth Physbod, to name a few) have already noted that yields as high as you're claiming are not common in ground battles unless thre is a presence of especially durable or heavy targets (planetary shield genrators or enemy bases, starships, etc.)

I heard these propositions, but I find them hard to accept. Seems too contrived when it comes to warfare.

I guess we have to fall back on the variable yield argument that has been going back and forth, but why would anyone be holding back if it meant victory to do otherwise?

Again, have you even bothered paying attention to what anyone else is saying, or are you just talking to listen to yourself?

It appears that you are getting caught up in the common fallacy of follow-on responses. If you break my discussion up into bits and reply to each in turn, please don't assume that I am continuing to talk without listening to what you are saying. It's all part of a single presentation, absent your viewpoints until after the fact.

And I was following the discussion, but it's hard for me to dismiss out of hand that Star Wars weapons are uber-destructive, but that no one chooses to use them. There's no Geneva convention as far as the Empire is concerned (they blew up planets for God's sake) and the Old Republic's influence in sane warfare was probably ignored just like the Senate was at the point of AOTC. So the question remains, are these really kT level weapons we are observing in use, are they choosing not to use them at this level, or are they not really kT level weapons in the way that we would understand them to be?

Whoa, a handful of google searches. Impressive.

Don't knock it till you try it.

Incidentally, tens or hundreds of MJ is not unprecedented for Naval weaponry: they fired salvos of such from battleship guns as far back as WW2 (by kinetic energy alone as well.) Which just serves to further illustrate the difference between different kinds of weapons (energy beams, projectile weapons, and bombs.)

airBiscuit wrote: You can't dismiss destructive energies out of hand simply because of its initial state. It's well known that hyperkinetic energies result in superheating effects, much like you would see from a beam weapon.

They also involve a shitload of momentum from both high mass and velocity, which ALSO is a significant factor in projectile weapons (compared to beam weapons.) I suppose this escaped your notice?

Materials literally liquefy or vaporize when put into contact with such high KE values. I doubt you would be arguing that blasters don't also do damage through superheating effects.

Except that energy is not the only damage mechanism to a projectile. KE only heats a target when the projectile in question encounters resistance. However, in a physical impact momentum can play just as much a role in terms of damage (particuarily penetration.) You cna quite easily have a projectile punch clean through a target and doing damage while delivering very little energy (contrast a FMJ/Armor piercing round versus a hollow-point, for example.) Momentum is not neccesarily as imporrtant to a beam weapon (A laser for example can have very little momentum but a great deal of energy.)

Energy is energy. It can be converted from one form to another (heat, kinetic work, light, x-rays, etc). The whole question is how efficiently it can be done.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? A projectile also has MOMENTUM that is also goign to be a factor in any impact. Can the same be said for a laser (or even a low-mass particle beam?)

A lightsaber would put this effect out, but much more slowly.

Actually, the hundreds of megajoules is per second. I should have expressed it in megawatts, technically.

What's being missed here is a discussion of power, as opposed to energy. Power, being energy over time, introduces the issue of shock or explosiveness.

Yes, but you never mentioned watts before. You've only been tossing out energy figures in your complaints about naval and amry cannon. And this still doesn't address the fact you apparently can't tell the difference between a phyiscal projectile and an enerrgy beam.

Are you suggesting that a lightsaber striking a rock would show the same effect as 160 pounds of TNT stuffed into it?

If you bothered reading anything I have been posting, you would know the answer to that. Obviously no, since the lightsaber is delivering its energy in a different manner than an explosive does. However, what you apparently fail to realize is that when we compare an energy weapon to "pounds", or "tons" of TNT, we're talking in terms of energy equivalence, not that the weapon in question behaves like a bomb.

I don't think so. Surely, the lightsaber can cut into the rock and take it apart, but over a matter of many seconds or minutes. 160 pounds of TNT will shatter it in a fraction of a second. That's where power comes in, which is why the connection of kilotons of TNT to joules of energy seems a specious connection to make, even as there is a conversion for it.

Nice repetition of the same basic shit everyone else has been saying. Now care to tell me what this has to do with the differences between an energy beam and a physical projectile?

It's just like the point someone made earlier about the blowtorch. It can cut a tank apart as well as any weapon, but you're not going to see it happen in a sudden violent moment. The energy put out by the blowtorch is cumulative over time and is sufficient to overcome the resistive properties of the material, but I won't measure its effects in kilotons of TNT.

I mentioned the blowtorch before (I dont know if anyone else has.) Apparently you have *not* bothered reading any of my commentary before deciding to criticize me. Gee, I wasn't expecting that.

It's mainly for illustration on just what a megajoule really means in terms of what it imparts.

This fails to explain why you bothered to mention the range at all when you were apparently discussing the destructiveness of the weapon.

I get the feeling that people are throwing kilotons and gigajoules around like it's everyday battlefield stuff and not something approaching armageddon-like destructive power. It's not to be taken lightly.

I get the feeling you're just talking to sound all important-like without bothering to read what anyone else posts.

This would be true, assuming that blasters followed the properties of lasers, but there can be many arguments (based on observation) as to why this wouldn't be the case. It's possible that blasters are semi-ballistic. But I don't think this distinction is really relevant to this discussion.

Soo.. the observed properties of a blaster have no relevance to the discussion? Then how can you say they don't behave like lasers, since your conclusion would also have to be based on observation of the weapon's properties (even though you apparently are ignoring certain obvious ones, like their apparent drop in gravity, or why blaster bolts don't jolt the arms of people when they strike something, or their poor penetration against transparent/thin objects like animal hides (ewok gliders in ROTJ) or glass doors (the Naboo palace in TPM).

I might add that there IS other evidence for massless blasters, but no doubt you'd ignore that on the basis of your blanket generalization that they aren't.

Since when did beam weapons have a sustained effect?

Apparently you missed AOTC. Did you miss the mini superlasers on the LAAT or SPHA-T? For that matter, have you ever observed the "damage before contact" instances in canon (like TESB?) They are well documented in both the OT AND the prequels. Again this gets back to the point wher eyou apparently have not bothered ot take any real interest in the observed properties.

Blaster bolt strike the target explosively, from anything I have observed in the movies.

In some cases, yes they do. But not in all cases.

These aren't lasers and they're not sustained beams.

Try watching AOTC again. For that matter, try educating yourself on the topic a bit more extensively before you start making some grandiose claims.

They're bolts of energy. And that energy is imparted somewhat kinetically, and probably more through heat. The key is that the heat conversion is inherent to the bolt and doesn't rely on muzzle velocity for superheating effects, making it more efficient than kinetic penetrators in that respect.

ROFLMAO. Now you're just tossing words around randomly to sound impressive.

So why aren't we seeing anything akin to this kind of effect at the kiloton level (10^6 to 10^8 MJ worth) in the movies? Are you saying that all of this just becomes heat and just seeps into the ground? Have you heard of steam explosions? Explosive vaporization?

For the last fuckign time, GO BACK AND REREAD THE DAMN THREAD and stop pretending that noone has addressed any of this yet.

On the contrary, I know that the energy imparted from either can be converted to both heat and physical work. There are some differences, mind you, but not several orders of magnitude difference.

Hello? What about momentum? I keep mentioning this, yet you keep going on and on as if energy is the only important consideration in a physical impact.

I heard these propositions, but I find them hard to accept. Seems too contrived when it comes to warfare.

Wow, a nice vague blanket dismissal of other's arguments. Why am I not surprised? Care to be a bit more specific as to why you find any of our propositions acceptable? OR is it you just found them too complicated to bother understanding?

It appears that you are getting caught up in the common fallacy of follow-on responses. If you break my discussion up into bits and reply to each in turn, please don't assume that I am continuing to talk without listening to what you are saying. It's all part of a single presentation, absent your viewpoints until after the fact.

Apparently you have. You've ignored, for example, my repeated mention of the relevance of momentum in phyiscal impacts and how this differs from beam weapons.

And I was following the discussion, but it's hard for me to dismiss out of hand that Star Wars weapons are uber-destructive, but that no one chooses to use them. There's no Geneva convention as far as the Empire is concerned (they blew up planets for God's sake) and the Old Republic's influence in sane warfare was probably ignored just like the Senate was at the point of AOTC. So the question remains, are these really kT level weapons we are observing in use, are they choosing not to use them at this level, or are they not really kT level weapons in the way that we would understand them to be?

I repeat: GO BACK AND READ THE GODDAMN THREAD and stop assuming everyone is acting as if kt level energy otuputs are common or frequent in SW combat. Its quite evident from your commentary that you did not bother reading any particular responses, or just glanced casually over them without really understanding what is being said (except for whatever you choose to just parrot back and hope noone notices.)

I see that I got caught up in arguing finer points and missed a turn in the road. I went back and reread the thread. Darth Wong put it pretty well here:

However, I do agree that kT-range ground weapons are highly unlikely, which might explain why Mr. Saxton specified 0.001 kT weapons for the AT-TE ball turrets in the ICS. That seems to be the normal level of output for standard ground-combat weapons, with similar-sized turrets on the LAAT, while special LAAT weapons such as the superlaser turrets being much more powerful (nearly 0.1 kT, although we don't know the time interval over which this is measured), albeit probably much more penetrative as well. I'm not sure who is seriously propagating this notion of 200 kT weapons being fired off everywhere like bottle rockets at Geonosis; it seems to me like you're inventing an argument in order to attack it. The ICS only alludes to the fact that kT-ranged weapons can be fitted into the LAAT missile launchers, but at no point does it claim that they are always loaded with such weapons.

I am willing to go with that and leave it at that. Lively discussion, nonetheless. Your points are duly noted, Mr. MacLeod.

Darth Wong wrote:

Sufficiently NON-entropic. You've got it backwards. And I was thinking of an object in vacuum.

Opps , sorry 'bout thad... (makes more sense now, the more enropic the more likely you'll get heat, but I don't quite get how a scalar energy quantity gives direction and movement to an object, even at low entropy?)

You're assuming that one of these seismic charge weapons cannot disperse its energy more widely than that. Nuclear fireballs, as mentioned previously, exist because the radiation produced by the blast cannot penetrate the isotherm formed around the warhead.

Well, with a 2 degree cone of dispersion just how wide an area could be expected? But following your reasoning and assuming it does affect a wider area, it might cause noticable ground tremors, yes?
****************
I didn't think I was inventing an argument, I was under the impression IP believes such energies were thrown around left and right at Geonosis without visable manifestations--this does not sit well with me.

This seems like as good a place as any to bring it up even though it's more of an OSF topic:

How do you make a nuclear weapon an on the fly variable yield warhead?
And especially WRT thermonuclear weapons which you don't build less then 100 KT? I've seen this in a number of universes and it makes no bloody sense to me

Proton torpedoes are thermonuclear warheads.

Why must LAAT/i missiles be thermonukes? And I believe what Mike was suggesting was that they had missiles with outright different warheads, not that the 200 kt could be "dialed down" on the fly.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Proton torpedoes are thermonuclear warheads.

Why must LAAT/i missiles be thermonukes? And I believe what Mike was suggesting was that they had missiles with outright different warheads, not that the 200 kt could be "dialed down" on the fly.

I'm aware of both of those facts, my general question still stands. I've seen it claimed in debates before that all kinds of different ships can swap out warheadsd and dial down yields on the fly (ranging from X-wings doing it in the X-wing series to people using that explanation for the small explosions in B5 Endgame). I don't see how it can be done.

It shouldn't be possible. Generally I try to avoid any adjustable yield explanations outside the range of a single order of magnitude.

X-Wing books...that is perplexing...I should start a thread on that?