190 réponses à ce sujet

[chucktheduck]

I support kamikaze cruisers with nuclear stockpiles

No offense to Japan

[Killjoy Cutter]

Moiaussi wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The use of atomic weapons to end WWII on the Pacific/Japanese front? 

Absolutely the least bad option at the time.  An invasion would have lead to far more Japanese deaths, and far more Allied deaths.  Japan was no near to surrender, and even after TWO atomic bombings, it took the personal intervention of the Japanese Emperor and the failure of a coup attempt before Japan actually surrendered.

At the time though, nukes were the new super weapon that noone else had. Suggesting that the same weapon or tactics would work in an entirely different war against a vastly higher tech opponent is problematic.

Two seperate questions. 


I'm not suggesting that they're insta-kill superweapons for ending the Reaper threat. 

I am arguing against the notion that it would be like the 1950s War of the Worlds, where the detonation of a device does absolutely nothing to the Martian "floating tanks".

[Moiaussi]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Two seperate questions. 


I'm not suggesting that they're insta-kill superweapons for ending the Reaper threat. 

I am arguing against the notion that it would be like the 1950s War of the Worlds, where the detonation of a device does absolutely nothing to the Martian "floating tanks".

Based on what we know in ME though (especially the fact that nuclear based weapons are *not* deployed), there is no particular reason to expect them do be any more effective than they were against martian tripods.

They might be useful in situations where the enemy shielding is down, against capital ships, maybe.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Moiaussi wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Two seperate questions. 


I'm not suggesting that they're insta-kill superweapons for ending the Reaper threat. 

I am arguing against the notion that it would be like the 1950s War of the Worlds, where the detonation of a device does absolutely nothing to the Martian "floating tanks".

Based on what we know in ME though (especially the fact that nuclear based weapons are *not* deployed), there is no particular reason to expect them do be any more effective than they were against martian tripods.

They might be useful in situations where the enemy shielding is down, against capital ships, maybe.

1)  In space, the effects of a nuclear detonation are not kinetic.  The effects of an atomospheric detonation come mainly from air around the bomb aborbing the hard radiation pulse and superheating.  In space, the effect is a massive hard-radiation pulse -- it's an energy weapon, potentially on the vast scale.

2)  If you really want a massive energy weapon, you can use a nuclear device to create a one-shot x-ray laser of rediculous proportions.  It actually surprises me that no one in the ME setting uses these things as mines or missile warheads, given that the shields supposedly are much less effective against directed energy weapons.

3) As for reasons that they're not used, well, here are two possible right off the top of my head:
a) many species seem to be linear thinkers on the whole, developing along obvious paths... who needs big nukes when you have mass accelerator weapons, orbital bombardment, etc?  No modern army fields crossbows, but there are rare occasions when a crossbow might still be the best weapon for non-obvious reasons.  It wouldn't surprise me, however,  if the Salarian STG has a secret stockpile of nuclear and chemical weapons "just in case"... we know they're fine with biological weapons
any species with a past exposure to the use of a nuclear device in surface warfare probably has a prejudice against them

[fongiel24]

Just thought I'd contribute this link as to the feasibility and usage of nuclear weapons in space. This is taken from a briefing prepared by NASA for the U.S. Congress. Admittedly it's a bit dated (late 1950s) but the math and physics should still be valid.

http://history.nasa....and/nuclear.htm

To summarize the article, NASA concluded that the kinetic effects and thermal radiation of the detonation would be completely eliminated in space (no atmosphere/air to act upon) but the effects of neutron and gamma radiation would be dramatically increased.

Relating to this debate, this would mean unless our fictional nuclear warheads are directly impacting against the hulls of the Reapers, the only effect of a detonation would be to shower them with nuclear radiation (neutron and gamma rays). Given that any space-going craft would routinely have to deal with the hazards of neutron and gamma rays, even non-Reaper vessels would probably be well-shielded against this threat.

If we consider that the Reapers are capable of operating in the galactic core (if the Collectors can build a base there, then it's safe to assume the Reapers have no problems functioning in that environment), high level exposure to nuclear radiation probably isn't a problem for them.

Based on this report, it's very possible that the detonation of a nuclear device outside a Reaper's kinetic barriers would be completely ineffective.

Modifié par fongiel24, 31 août 2010 - 07:28 .

[Moiaussi]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1)  In space, the effects of a nuclear detonation are not kinetic.  The effects of an atomospheric detonation come mainly from air around the bomb aborbing the hard radiation pulse and superheating.  In space, the effect is a massive hard-radiation pulse -- it's an energy weapon, potentially on the vast scale.

In space, kinetic weapons are kinetic. Those really are chunks of matter the DN main guns throw around. If practical, wouldn't it make more sense for the weapon to burst as you say but *also* do kinetic damage against the shields? Regardless, the energy pulse is general, not focused, and dissipates rapidly with distance.

2)  If you really want a massive energy weapon, you can use a nuclear device to create a one-shot x-ray laser of rediculous proportions.  It actually surprises me that no one in the ME setting uses these things as mines or missile warheads, given that the shields supposedly are much less effective against directed energy weapons.

The key word is 'supposedly.' Heat and radiation from an overactive star in ME2 don't bypass shields, they act against them just as a kinetic weapon would. The only difference really is that it is constant instead of a single kinetic hit.

3) As for reasons that they're not used, well, here are two possible right off the top of my head:
a) many species seem to be linear thinkers on the whole, developing along obvious paths... who needs big nukes when you have mass accelerator weapons, orbital bombardment, etc?  No modern army fields crossbows, but there are rare occasions when a crossbow might still be the best weapon for non-obvious reasons.  It wouldn't surprise me, however,  if the Salarian STG has a secret stockpile of nuclear and chemical weapons "just in case"... we know they're fine with biological weapons
any species with a past exposure to the use of a nuclear device in surface warfare probably has a prejudice against them

Because modern artillery in calibres as low as 155 can fire tac nuke shells that weigh only twice as much as a standard DN round. Lighter materials and better casings and you could fire the same mass with thermonuclear warheads..... but they don't.

For orbital bombardment, nukes are just a waste. You can bombard from vastly long ranges, far outside the range of conventional ship to ship fire because you are hitting a large essentially stationary target. Conversely there is no reason not to use them in space since ship to ship there is no environmental issue. Every starship's core is a nuke of at least tactical yield already. We know this from Vermire.

As for crossbows, water pistols are useful as weapons on rare occasions. That does not mean they are looked to as salvation in an intergalactic war unless there is very good reason to.

Vermire was an example of where a nuke might be useful (albiet a questionable one since in nuking the compound there is no way to determine if any copies of the research got tight beamed off somewhere).

[Kavadas]

Two interesting weapons for use against the Reapers who would be something involving antimatter, which we can reasonably surmise from Sovereign that even the Reapers haven't figured that delicious little gem out yet, or, better yet, strange matter which would be epically awesome.

Another interesting weapon idea would be some type of device which can simulate a miniature quasar jet, of which a super massive black hole can generate the most powerful which makes it the most powerful force in the known universe, or perhaps a star emitting a huge a gamma ray burst from it's poles could be pointed by some method at a Reaper.

Heck, even a massive neutron bomb's enhanced radiation could have potentially interesting effects on the Reapers,  Reapers have an organic component so corruption of the organic compounds would presumably be their greatest weakness.

There's a lot of interesting ideas out there.

Modifié par Kavadas, 31 août 2010 - 09:16 .

[Wolverfrog]

Nuclear missiles don't work fantastically in space.

[Moiaussi]

Wolverfrog wrote...

Nuclear missiles don't work fantastically in space.

People keep looking for cheezy loopholes in the writing. They are rules lawyering solutions rather than taking everything in context.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Well, actually, we're looking at the real physics instead of blowing it off as "nukes are old tech, they're useless, move on."

[mattylee10]

Sovereign was so hard to kill due to its shields being impervious to dreadnought scale weaponry.

So in order to beat the reapers you need to get around their shields. This can be done either with energy weapons which kinetic barriers cant stop or by using something travelling at velocities slow enough to not trigger the barrier (what is the speed at which shields react anyway?)

[Moiaussi]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Well, actually, we're looking at the real physics instead of blowing it off as "nukes are old tech, they're useless, move on."

You are looking at real world tech and real world and comparing them with fictional psuedo-science tech, and are latching on to something that isn't really confirmed, namely the vulnerability to energy based weapons.

Such a vulnerability is logical, but doesn't neccessarily apply. There is still the question of why they are not used already if they are as good as you say. There is the bigger issue of them being an 'easy' solution. They would effectively prove the Council right in that why are we looking for ways to fight the reavers when we already have nice easy to make nuclear weapons?