106 réponses à ce sujet

[Remix-General Aetius]

Ever heard of "scorched earth policy"?. You'd be ruining a large part of the environment, especially if you're intending to take over the region.

[goishen]

Like what? It's not like their stupid guns do any serious damage. Okay why not use antimatter annihilation, if you wish you can destroy a whole planet with that. 

 

 

Like sending down asteroids on planets.  I mean, sure.  Could we use nukes more efficiently than we could use asteroids?  Sure.  Which would take less time?  My money's on the asteroid per capita killed.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yes but those are gigantic, and get smaller when they burn through the atmosphere.

And? They still are much more effective and efficient than a nuclear warhead. 

[Novak]

And? They still are much more effective and efficient than a nuclear warhead. 

 

I wouldn't bet on that

[Novak]

Ever heard of "scorched earth policy"?. You'd be ruining a large part of the environment, especially if you're intending to take over the region.

 

Better than the alternative, plus didn't the salarians build something which clears up the air?

[Novak]

Like sending down asteroids on planets.  I mean, sure.  Could we use nukes more efficiently than we could use asteroids?  Sure.  Which would take less time?  My money's on the asteroid per capita killed.

 

Not so much for me, but hey who knows. This would still leave us with the whole antimatter bombs.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I wouldn't bet on that

I would. As a space faring race all you need to do to make an asteroid a weapon is have a small satellite stay near it to help redirect it to where you want to go due to the small gravitational pull(this is one of NASA's main plans if an asteroid is on a collision course with us). Or just strap rockets on it. Creating a nuke is much more costly, intricate, and more things can go wrong causing you to be hurt and not the enemy. And when it comes to payload an asteroid wins no contest.

[N7Jamaican]

Nah

[Novak]

I would. As a space faring race all you need to do to make an asteroid a weapon is have a small satellite stay near it to help redirect it to where you want to go due to the small gravitational pull(this is one of NASA's main plans if an asteroid is on a collision course with us). Or just strap rockets on it. Creating a nuke is much more costly, intricate, and more things can go wrong causing you to be hurt and not the enemy. And when it comes to payload an asteroid wins no contest. 

 

Fine fine, the biggest one that hit earth had 50 million megatones. Still leaves us with antimatter though.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Fine fine, the biggest one that hit earth had 50 million megatones. Still leaves us with antimatter though.

As I said, antimatter is easily the most effective because there is no defense for it. No matter how much an enemy fortifies themselves, the antimatter will literally disintegrate the defenses and then them. 

[Novak]

As I said, antimatter is easily the most efficient because there is no defense for it. No matter how much an enemy fortifies themselves, the antimatter will literally dissolve the defenses and then them. 

 

Okay, antimatter it is.

[SardaukarElite]

Yes but those are gigantic, and get smaller when they burn through the atmosphere.

 

 

The Apollo capsules were small and they made it as well. Things don't just magically burn up on entering the atmosphere. It's a physics problem, at high velocity air provides resistance but we're capable of making things that can punch through.

 

A dropped rod of tungsten would receive little resistance if it was thin enough, and it's tungsten - it's tough and ruins everybody's day when it arrives. 

[AlanC9]

If you can nuke them, they can nuke you. Invincible weapons with no possible defense don't make for an entertaining SF setting.

[Hadeedak]

In this thread, we stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

[Novak]

The Apollo capsules were small and they made it as well. Things don't just magically burn up on entering the atmosphere. It's a physics problem, at high velocity air provides resistance but we're capable of making things that can punch through.

 

A dropped rod of tungsten would receive little resistance if it was thin enough, and it's tungsten - it's tough and ruins everybody's day when it arrives. 

 

True true

[Novak]

In this thread, we stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

stop it, this is about power and destruction not some lovey dovey crap

[Remix-General Aetius]

Better than the alternative, plus didn't the salarians build something which clears up the air?

 

Tell that to Kalros and the Destroyer who levelled it. Besides how many Salarians do you THINK are on the Ark? Are there enough, and with the knowledge to recreate another Shroud?

 

[xAmilli0n]

Yea with the explosive yield of Nagasaki, that's kids play.

Until you realize ships were firing these off every few seconds....

But yeah, you can add them to the arsenal if you like. The slow moving missiles/rockets would be vulnerable to laser defense systems though.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

stop it, this is about power and destruction not some lovey dovey crap

 

Too young to understand.....

 

 

Dr. Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

[KaiserShep]

I wouldn't mind using something like the Little Doctor.

 

 

Why nuke 'em, when you can scour the enemy's wretched planet clean by dismantling everything on a molecular level? 

[I Am Robot]

I really have no idea why the OP made this thread, but the answer to the question is quite simple. Any advanced civ could very easily shut down any vectors used to deliver a nuclear pay load.

[Brayton]

I really have no idea why the OP made this thread, but the answer to the question is quite simple. Any advanced civ could very easily shut down any vectors used to deliver a nuclear pay load.

However they had vectors to launch close range missiles and massive air invasions?

 

The reason is simple, bad warefare writing. Warfare and by extension the tactics and technology therein, have never been Bioware's strong suit. And from Dragon Age Inquisition, this hasn't gotten better. They really need a dedicated writer who understands or at least will do research about combat tactics and warfare. OR ****, take some pages outta the massive Battletech catalog.

[I Am Robot]

However they had vectors to launch close range missiles and massive air invasions?

 

The reason is simple, bad warefare writing. Warfare and by extension the tactics and technology therein, have never been Bioware's strong suit. And from Dragon Age Inquisition, this hasn't gotten better. They really need a dedicated writer who understands or at least will do research about combat tactics and warfare. OR ****, take some pages outta the massive Battletech catalog.

 

Yes because massive air invasion and close range missiles are generally targeted at the battlefront and not at industrial or residential zones which would require them to fly their way through thousands of kilometres of missile shields and detection apparatus, even if they were launched from space. 'Nuking' something is really a lot more complicated than it sounds.

[Nitrocuban]

https://www.youtube....h?v=sCoHT_cHPzY

[Osena109]

What is the fun of nuking them  when  you can crush your enemies,see them driven before u, and hear the lamentation of their women.