Aller au contenu

Photo

If one Reaper attacked present-day Earth


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
253 réponses à ce sujet

#101
MDT1

MDT1
  • Members
  • 646 messages

111987 wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

Even if nukes are banned under the Citadel Conventions, the presence of a Reaper (let alone a fleet of them) stomping around on a planet immediately passes the Godzilla Threshold.


The problem is that with that many Reapers, the amount of nukes it would take would to kill them all would render Earth completely uninhabitable. Not to mention after the first few are destroyed, the other Reapers will likely get the hell out of there.


Yeah, but if I were the system allience I would try to hit them in space. But yes, this could go wrong two.

#102
Maferath

Maferath
  • Members
  • 695 messages
Even if our current nukes have enough firepower to take down a Reaper, wouldn't it be able to hijack them or something? Our electronic systems must be very rudimentary and unprotected by Mass Effect's standards.

#103
ediskrad327

ediskrad327
  • Members
  • 4 031 messages
present day earth? we would be doomed :|

#104
Carnage752

Carnage752
  • Members
  • 1 113 messages

Maferath wrote...

Even if our current nukes have enough firepower to take down a Reaper, wouldn't it be able to hijack them or something? Our electronic systems must be very rudimentary and unprotected by Mass Effect's standards.

Possibility.

#105
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

Carnage752 wrote...


Yes and as I have explained, a modern day nuke has an energy yield far superior to that of the 12 or so ships that attacked Sovereign. Those weren't even dreadnaughts.

Forget about the ground situation. Send in the airforce; we could send a thousand planes with nukes if we wanted to. That would obvioulsy be overkill, but you get the point. Only one missile would need to strike the Reaper to kill it. And as we've seen, ships have been able to hit Reapers will missiles, they just haven't been powerful enough to do any real damage because ME people don't use nukes anymore.

Quote from whatever his name ^^

You can't just fit the nukes that could do that level of damage on fighter jets. They have to be fit on special planes designed for that. They would be easy as hell to spot, and shot down without hesitation. That's even assuming the ship stays grounded. It could easily dodge nukes launched from the planes, resulting in us destroying our lands without any damage done. Thats even assuming nukes are approved for use. The first strike would be devestating, probably hitting important assets to stop us from retaliating. The world goverments would be in chaos. When they manage to get their **** together, more likely than not many military assets and leadership elements will be destroyed. The nukes would be too valuable to make a shot that fails. Thats not even including the factor of indoctrination, which may end up making us use our nukes on ourselves. Nukes are a tenuous solution at best.


Of course you can. Why couldn't you have a nuke on a plane? That's how they did it all the way back in the 1945, and I think we've gotten a little more sophisticated in our technologies since then.

All the planes would be easy to spot, but since most planes have armaments anyways, how is the Reaper supposed to know which exact ones to take down? Also, like I said if you really wanted to, you could send in dozens of planes with nukes.

The Reapers can't just float and do quick lateral dodges or something. Either they're in space, or they're landed/flying. They can't just dodge missiles though, they aren't THAT agile.

If the nuke does miss, then it will have only missed by a few hundred feet anyways, which is close enough to still kill a Reaper no problem. I repreat; it doesn't need to be a direct hit.

If there's one Reaper, it can't possible cripple the entire world in a single blow. Even if it lands right on the White House, there's a whole rest of the world out there totally unharmed. No chaos over there.

Remember, Russia has thousands of nukes. Britain and France and China have hundreds. And since whatever city the Reaper is in is screwed already, nuking it wouldn't be that radical of a solution. When they see that traditional weapons are ineffective, you know they'd throw their biggest guns out at the Reaper.

#106
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

MDT1 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

Even if nukes are banned under the Citadel Conventions, the presence of a Reaper (let alone a fleet of them) stomping around on a planet immediately passes the Godzilla Threshold.


The problem is that with that many Reapers, the amount of nukes it would take would to kill them all would render Earth completely uninhabitable. Not to mention after the first few are destroyed, the other Reapers will likely get the hell out of there.


Yeah, but if I were the system allience I would try to hit them in space. But yes, this could go wrong two.


In space they'd be much harder to hit, because they can manuver a lot better. Planetside, they are basically stationary.

#107
SuddenlyPhoenix

SuddenlyPhoenix
  • Members
  • 108 messages
Simple we send in Chuck Norris :)

#108
Farbautisonn

Farbautisonn
  • Members
  • 3 083 messages

DanRoc wrote...

I would get it to play a game of tic tac toe against itself.


I see what you did there.jpg

#109
MDT1

MDT1
  • Members
  • 646 messages

111987 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

Even if nukes are banned under the Citadel Conventions, the presence of a Reaper (let alone a fleet of them) stomping around on a planet immediately passes the Godzilla Threshold.


The problem is that with that many Reapers, the amount of nukes it would take would to kill them all would render Earth completely uninhabitable. Not to mention after the first few are destroyed, the other Reapers will likely get the hell out of there.


Yeah, but if I were the system allience I would try to hit them in space. But yes, this could go wrong two.


In space they'd be much harder to hit, because they can manuver a lot better. Planetside, they are basically stationary.


Sure, but I was thinling about a "zone-of-****" directly in their approach vector. I mean they impossibly can ftl into atmosphere, they have to "brake" near orbit. But as I said, don't know if this would work.

Modifié par MDT1, 23 février 2012 - 11:36 .


#110
Shelondias

Shelondias
  • Members
  • 798 messages
We'd all be dead but he'd be so embarrassed.
That reaper would be ridiculed by the other reapers for being a noob and wiping us out before we even achieved light speed.

#111
nevar00

nevar00
  • Members
  • 1 395 messages
We would all die.

The only way we would stand a chance to kill it is if the US and Russia all launched their ridiculously unnecessary amount of nukes at the thing... I imagine that would take it down eventually, barriers and all. But even then I think we would have done some irreversible damage to our own planet.

#112
G Kevin

G Kevin
  • Members
  • 1 503 messages

Farbautisonn wrote...

G Kevin wrote...

Nukes? pfft. Use an Anti-matter Bomb. Costly, yet effective.

-How does our Anti matter stockpile look? 


We can produce Anti-matter, atleast enough of it to overpower nukes.

The reason we don't make them is because of huge cost for so little yield but if a reaper was killing off cities, I don't think cost is going to be a problem.

Modifié par G Kevin, 23 février 2012 - 11:38 .


#113
adamross

adamross
  • Members
  • 86 messages
For example..Femshep trailer's end, Femshep is shooting a reaper with some kind of nuke-cain like weapon and brings pretty big damage on that Reaper. So..:P 10 days..OMG.

#114
Alex06

Alex06
  • Members
  • 255 messages

Chewin3 wrote...

annihilator27 wrote...
F*** It, Im launching a suicide mission to plant a nuke in it.Whose in?


Can we stop by and do my loyalty mission on the way?

Can it wait a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations.

#115
Carnage752

Carnage752
  • Members
  • 1 113 messages
@111987
(Because I'm to lazy to quote)
Thing is though, they would have to fight the Reaper without any satelites. Any smart Reaper would hit our orbital satelites before attacking. That is why his first strike will be devestating. The breakdown of communication and technology dependent on satelites will hurt us immensely.

And source saying you can fit nukes on any fighter jet?

#116
MakeMineMako

MakeMineMako
  • Members
  • 1 289 messages

111987 wrote...

A nuke would easily handle a single Reaper. Modern day nukes have yields in the megaton range, while the most powerful dreadnaughts fire only in the lower kiloton range. The fallout would be bad and millions would die, but humanity could easily survive a single Reaper.


Actually, most modern strategic nuclear weapons are in the high kiloton range in terms of yield (even the variable yield devices). Very few are in the megaton range anymore. The most powerful strategic nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal currently is the aircraft deployable B83 variable yield weapon, which has a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.

Most of the current MIRV's we use are in the 300-475 kiloton range. Most of those currently used by the Russian Federation range from 400-800 kilotons in yield. Most of the currently deployed strategic nuclear weapons, in the low megaton range, are fielded by the People's Republic of China. Mostly because their strategic missiles are not as accurate as U.S. and Russian models. Because of MIRVs and increased accuracy, the perceived need for high megaton yield nuclear weapons vanished. Nuclear weapons of the 'older" nuclear powers became more effcient.

#117
Xerxes52

Xerxes52
  • Members
  • 3 147 messages

111987 wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

Even if nukes are banned under the Citadel Conventions, the presence of a Reaper (let alone a fleet of them) stomping around on a planet immediately passes the Godzilla Threshold.


The problem is that with that many Reapers, the amount of nukes it would take would to kill them all would render Earth completely uninhabitable. Not to mention after the first few are destroyed, the other Reapers will likely get the hell out of there.


Possibly, although it would only take one or two large nukes (15-25 megaton range) two wipe out a city full of Reapers, who love to pack themselves tightly into urban areas if the Earth Demo is any evidence. A coordinated strike could wipe out thousands of Reapers on the Earth, and the fleet could overwhelm the survivors with railgun-fired nukes as they flee the cities (even in space, the thermal and gamma radiation would still be lethal).

Many cities would be destroyed, but the fallout would be minimal so long as the nuclear fireball doesn't touch the ground, which can be avoided with an airburst device.

#118
Farbautisonn

Farbautisonn
  • Members
  • 3 083 messages

G Kevin wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

G Kevin wrote...

Nukes? pfft. Use an Anti-matter Bomb. Costly, yet effective.

-How does our Anti matter stockpile look? 


We can produce Anti-matter, atleast enough of it to overpower nukes.

The reason we don't make them is because of huge cost for so little yield but if a reaper was killing off cities, I don't think cost is going to be a problem.


-Oh... how long does it take to produce even a single gramme of antimatter given our current capabilitis? And how much do we have in stock?

#119
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

MakeMineMako wrote...

111987 wrote...

A nuke would easily handle a single Reaper. Modern day nukes have yields in the megaton range, while the most powerful dreadnaughts fire only in the lower kiloton range. The fallout would be bad and millions would die, but humanity could easily survive a single Reaper.


Actually, most modern strategic nuclear weapons are in the high kiloton range in terms of yield (even the variable yield devices). Very few are in the megaton range anymore. The most powerful strategic nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal currently is the aircraft deployable B83 variable yield weapon, which has a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.

Most of the current MIRV's we use are in the 300-475 kiloton range. Most of those currently used by the Russian Federation range from 400-800 kilotons in yield. Most of the currently deployed strategic nuclear weapons, in the low megaton range, are fielded by the People's Republic of China. Mostly because their strategic missiles are not as accurate as U.S. and Russian models. Because of MIRVs and increased accuracy, the perceived need for high megaton yield nuclear weapons vanished. Nuclear weapons of the 'older" nuclear powers became more effcient.


Mmm, well I'll take your word for it. But 1.2 megatons should still be enough to take out a single Reaper. Not to mention the heat and radiation, which bypasses kinetic barriers entirely anyways. Even if the force of the explosion idn't overload the barriers, the heat would still do critical damage to the Reapers.

#120
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

Carnage752 wrote...

@111987
(Because I'm to lazy to quote)
Thing is though, they would have to fight the Reaper without any satelites. Any smart Reaper would hit our orbital satelites before attacking. That is why his first strike will be devestating. The breakdown of communication and technology dependent on satelites will hurt us immensely.

And source saying you can fit nukes on any fighter jet?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_delivery#Main_delivery_mechanisms

#121
G Kevin

G Kevin
  • Members
  • 1 503 messages

Farbautisonn wrote...

G Kevin wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

G Kevin wrote...

Nukes? pfft. Use an Anti-matter Bomb. Costly, yet effective.

-How does our Anti matter stockpile look? 


We can produce Anti-matter, atleast enough of it to overpower nukes.

The reason we don't make them is because of huge cost for so little yield but if a reaper was killing off cities, I don't think cost is going to be a problem.


-Oh... how long does it take to produce even a single gramme of antimatter given our current capabilitis? And how much do we have in stock?



With our current capabilites not much, if at all.

The cost of making Anit-matter is huge that no military leader would pay the astronomical prices for such a weapon. But, if that cost restriction were eliminated and we could crank up full production of Anti-matter, maybe we could produce enough?

#122
MakeMineMako

MakeMineMako
  • Members
  • 1 289 messages

111987 wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

111987 wrote...

A nuke would easily handle a single Reaper. Modern day nukes have yields in the megaton range, while the most powerful dreadnaughts fire only in the lower kiloton range. The fallout would be bad and millions would die, but humanity could easily survive a single Reaper.


Actually, most modern strategic nuclear weapons are in the high kiloton range in terms of yield (even the variable yield devices). Very few are in the megaton range anymore. The most powerful strategic nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal currently is the aircraft deployable B83 variable yield weapon, which has a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.

Most of the current MIRV's we use are in the 300-475 kiloton range. Most of those currently used by the Russian Federation range from 400-800 kilotons in yield. Most of the currently deployed strategic nuclear weapons, in the low megaton range, are fielded by the People's Republic of China. Mostly because their strategic missiles are not as accurate as U.S. and Russian models. Because of MIRVs and increased accuracy, the perceived need for high megaton yield nuclear weapons vanished. Nuclear weapons of the 'older" nuclear powers became more effcient.


Mmm, well I'll take your word for it. But 1.2 megatons should still be enough to take out a single Reaper. Not to mention the heat and radiation, which bypasses kinetic barriers entirely anyways. Even if the force of the explosion idn't overload the barriers, the heat would still do critical damage to the Reapers.


Agreed.

Hell, a low altitude air burst from a intermediate tactical nuclear weapon, will cook a Sovereign-class Reaper's ass quiet nicely. So, yeah, 1.2 megatons of thermonuclear medicine will do the trick. :devil:

Burn, space squids, burn......

#123
Carnage752

Carnage752
  • Members
  • 1 113 messages

111987 wrote...

Carnage752 wrote...

@111987
(Because I'm to lazy to quote)
Thing is though, they would have to fight the Reaper without any satelites. Any smart Reaper would hit our orbital satelites before attacking. That is why his first strike will be devestating. The breakdown of communication and technology dependent on satelites will hurt us immensely.

And source saying you can fit nukes on any fighter jet?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_delivery#Main_delivery_mechanisms

You got me there. But if you read into it, a jet would have to get really close to manually fire on the Reaper, leaving it well in LoS before it could fire. Cruise missles won't work without satelites, as well as ICBMs.

#124
Farbautisonn

Farbautisonn
  • Members
  • 3 083 messages

G Kevin wrote...


With our current capabilites not much, if at all.

The cost of making Anit-matter is huge that no military leader would pay the astronomical prices for such a weapon. But, if that cost restriction were eliminated and we could crank up full production of Anti-matter, maybe we could produce enough?


As it is now I belive that producing even a single gramme of Antimatter would take months. And we dont really have an effective way of storing it. So... no. I dont think anti matter would be viable.

#125
Warden130

Warden130
  • Members
  • 898 messages
Image IPB