PDA

View Full Version : The Death Star. ...Let's blow it up again.



sadprince
2002-Jun-26, 07:48 AM
The more I think about the Death Star, the more annoying it gets... yeah yeah, it's a movie blah blah blah.

But what's going on with its' gravity? Contradiction ahoy!!!

GOOD (?)
We have fighter pilots trying to blow it up. But the way they fly and manouvre we see it has a planetary body gravity system just like good old Earth.

BAD
2. Internal shots show have docking bays which face outwards which would mean that the stormtroopers and everyone else is able to walk up walls. Same with Darth and his boys having a board room meeting with window facing out.

I've been informed by believers that the death star is layered upwards ie:multi-floored, with artificial gravity from bottom (south pole) upwards. So which one is it? How big is it? If it had enough mass it would have it's own gravity anyway...

Now don't start me on the way this thing can fly between planets like it does...

Anyone else got a Death Star grievance they'd like to share?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sadprince on 2002-06-26 03:50 ]</font>

informant
2002-Jun-26, 12:56 PM
Well, most of the Death Star was hollow space (rooms, hangars, etc.) That would take away a lot of mass.

Silas
2002-Jun-26, 04:27 PM
My Death Star grievance is just the usual: if they'd used the same materials to build a large number of standard warships, they could have multiplied the threat, and maintained strategic flexibility.

It's grotesque overkill to be able to shatter an entire planet; all that's really needed is to scorch to biosphere a little.

(Also: the scene where the officer says to Moff Tarkin, "We've analyzed their attack pattern, and there is a danger." So, why not send out a bunch of engineers to put a cap over the vent? Sheesh.)

The Star Wars universe clearly has a mastery of artificial gravity, including anti-gravity, as well as force-fields, so the issue of the Death Star's gravitational mass is a non-issue. The question of its *cost,* now: there's a big one! Who's paying for these things?

Silas

David Hall
2002-Jun-26, 05:08 PM
As I understand it, the entire purpose of the Death Star was the fear factor. Sure, a fleet of star destroyers could level a planet, but they couldn't do it in the same way. Planetary shields can hold of an armada for a while, and ship-to-ship combat could even allow you some hope of victory. And in any case the planet is still there, inhabitable or not.

But to have this monster pop out of hyperspace and shatter your world with a single shot, shields notwithstanding, well, that would be too much. Or at least so it was hoped.

sadprince
2002-Jun-27, 01:49 PM
Yes, the death star must have cost a few empire tax dollars.

Now how about the second death star. Here's my theory on how that blew up so easily...

It was made of wood. Yes, you heard me. Well that was the only resource on the planet with the silly teddy bears....

Or maybe they were building the bits on another industrial planet and then importing the parts one by one. Only a few light years for each girder. Nahhhh... It was WOOD!

nebularain
2002-Jun-27, 03:29 PM
How much material can you send into outer space from one planet before that planet starts losing mass? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-27, 10:59 PM
On 2002-06-27 11:29, nebularain wrote:
How much material can you send into outer space from one planet before that planet starts losing mass? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
Ummmm....none....any....all.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gramma loreto on 2002-06-27 19:00 ]</font>

Russ
2002-Jun-28, 07:18 PM
The thing that staggers me about them building a new Death Star is that the first was such a miserable failure, why build another!?!?!?!?

Two of the biggest blunders in military history were Hitlers "Atlantic Wall" and the "Maginoux Line". The most successful section of Hitlers Atlantic Wall held off Allied troops for about 8 hours. The rest not even two. The Maginoux was bybassed, surrounded and neutralized without a fomal fight.

Seen anybody building similar rivitments since? Why would the Empire make such a mistake.?

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-28, 07:45 PM
On 2002-06-28 15:18, Russ wrote:
Two of the biggest blunders in military history were Hitlers "Atlantic Wall" and the "Maginoux Line". The most successful section of Hitlers Atlantic Wall held off Allied troops for about 8 hours. The rest not even two. The Maginoux was bybassed, surrounded and neutralized without a fomal fight.

Small nitpick on a common misconception, Russ. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
The Maginot Line actually worked exactly as designed; which was to channel any German invasion north through the Ardennes where it was belived that a sizeable armored force would not be able to move effectively. That's why the Maginot was never extended north to the Channel. That the Wehrmacht was able to punch through the Ardennes in a matter of days was the point that surprised everyone.

As for the Death Star getting rebuilt, well, you know persuasive those pesky Star Wars defense contractors can be, no matter which galaxy they're in. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-28 15:46 ]</font>

maryellenandtom
2002-Jun-28, 07:49 PM
The first death star wasn't a failure. It assured that the rebels would be paranoid about another.

The second death star was never meant to be a planet smashing weapon. It was simply a lure for the rebel fleet. And it would have worked if not for the Ewoks.

By the way, how did the superlaser fire out through the defense shield?

Chuck
2002-Jun-28, 10:18 PM
The thing that staggers me about them building a new Death Star is that the first was such a miserable failure, why build another!?!?!?!?The first one was still under warranty?

Wiley
2002-Jun-28, 10:50 PM
On 2002-06-28 15:18, Russ wrote:
The thing that staggers me about them building a new Death Star is that the first was such a miserable failure, why build another!?!?!?!?


Miserable failure is too harsh. It really had one small design flaw. (True, it led to a fatal crash, but how many people really need that floating point divide?) Besides, with only one planet destroyed, it was still in beta testing. And we can not judge Death Star v.2 since it really never even made it to the alpha testing.

Silas
2002-Jun-28, 11:19 PM
Hmph... If the Empire wanted to win, they should have opened a marksmanship academy...

Silas

DALeffler
2002-Jun-29, 12:00 AM
Aim an asteroid at the DS and have it come out of hyperspace about 20k miles away from the DS. Make sure to give that asteroid a velocity around 150k miles per second.

Repeat as necesssary.

You don't even need an asteroid. One of them big 'ol freighters should do the job. Tell C3PO to pilot the thing. Better yet, program C3PO to do the job.

Silas
2002-Jun-29, 01:42 AM
On 2002-06-28 20:00, DALeffler wrote:
Aim an asteroid at the DS and have it come out of hyperspace about 20k miles away from the DS. Make sure to give that asteroid a velocity around 150k miles per second.

Repeat as necesssary.

You don't even need an asteroid. One of them big 'ol freighters should do the job. Tell C3PO to pilot the thing. Better yet, program C3PO to do the job.


I like the theory...but the Star Wars universe has force field technology, and so I suspect such an assault could be deflected.

Counter-argument: so why did the original Death Star allow a bunch of puny little fighters to come within attack range?

Counter-counter-argument: the little on-board R2 units were able to modulate the local field strengths and heterodyne holes just large enough for fighters, whereas bigger ships would have been repelled.

Counter-(to the nth power)-arguments are, alas, easy to construct...

Silas

DALeffler
2002-Jun-29, 03:30 AM
I like the theory...but the Star Wars universe has force field technology, and so I suspect such an assault could be deflected.

Which is why we aim the first asteroid at the field generator on the forest moon of Endor...

Counter-argument: so why did the original Death Star allow a bunch of puny little fighters to come within attack range?

Who knew you could get ordnance to do right angle turns like that?! Sheeesh! What'cha'gonna do 'gins't that??

Counter-counter-argument: the little on-board R2 units were able to modulate the local field strengths and heterodyne holes just large enough for fighters, whereas bigger ships would have been repelled.

Hey! You do understand there can only be one of us making up the rules, right?!!

Counter-(to the nth power)-arguments are, alas, easy to construct...

Ok, then.

Russ
2002-Jul-01, 02:51 PM
On 2002-06-28 15:45, pvtpylot wrote:
Small nitpick on a common misconception, Russ. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
The Maginot Line actually worked exactly as designed; which was to channel any German invasion north through the Ardennes where it was belived that a sizeable armored force would not be able to move effectively. That's why the Maginot was never extended north to the Channel. That the Wehrmacht was able to punch through the Ardennes in a matter of days was the point that surprised everyone.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-28 15:46 ]</font>

Thank you for supporting my point. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


That the Wehrmacht was able to punch through the Ardennes in a matter of days was the point that surprised everyone.

The Maginot Line was intended to keep Germany from invading and conquering France. Germany did both in six weeks. The Maginot Line failed 100%.

To add insult to injury, as the allies were driving the Nazis back to Germany, the Nazis occupied the Maginot Line and used it to defend against the very type of invasion it was designed to repel, which the allies so obligingly launched. They killed & woonded thousands of allied troops.

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-01, 05:04 PM
On 2002-07-01 10:51, Russ wrote:
The Maginot Line was intended to keep Germany from invading and conquering France. Germany did both in six weeks. The Maginot Line failed 100%.

Well, I suppose one could make the point that the Maginot, the Ardennes terrain and French armored forces were supposed to work in concert to prevent the invasion, and that the Maginot was the only part of an overall dumb plan that worked as designed, but in relation to your Death Star comparison it would be irrelevant. So, before we drift too far OT (I know, too late!), I concede your point.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Jul-01, 05:22 PM
The idea behind the Death Star was not that it was a weapon per-se. It was a political tool. It's purpose was to control the masses through fear. It's not that other methods couldn't do the same damage. It was the incomprehensible amount of firepower contained in one ship that made it so terrible.

One comparison could be made between the carpet bombings of Japan in WWII vs. the atomic bombings. The conventional bombings actually did the greater damage. But it took lots of time, effort, and resources to do it. The Japanese government didn't really consider surrender. The atomic bomb on the other hand was able to do the same amount of damage as months of bombings using just one plane and one bomb. That was truly terrifying. They gave up very quickly under this new threat.

The first Death Star failed through a simple design error and a lot of dumb "luck". So the Emperor decided to start again (no doubt heavily influenced by his own arrogance). But sometime during the process, he thought up a plan to use it as bait to catch and destroy the rebels once and for all. Of course, we all know what happened to his plans, but if the rebels hadn't been able to destroy the second one as well, then he could have terrorized the galaxy into submission. I guess he just didn't expect lightning to strike twice.

David Hall
2002-Jul-01, 05:36 PM
On 2002-06-28 21:42, Silas wrote:

I like the theory...but the Star Wars universe has force field technology, and so I suspect such an assault could be deflected.

Counter-argument: so why did the original Death Star allow a bunch of puny little fighters to come within attack range?

Counter-counter-argument: the little on-board R2 units were able to modulate the local field strengths and heterodyne holes just large enough for fighters, whereas bigger ships would have been repelled.


I think it was pretty clearly stated that the DS was heavily protected against large-scale assaults. In fact, that was it's weakness. It was designed only with the idea that it would be facing capital ships. And I'm sure that would include asteroid attacks. But what the rebels did was more along the lines of sabotage. They found an Achilles heel.

If you recall, in the first movie, the fighters mentioned passing through the defensive shields. So I think Silas is right here. The small ships somehow were able to make their way through defenses that larger ships couldn't. Perhaps this was another weakness they found in the plans, a gap in the shields, or a way to counteract them.

g99
2002-Jul-01, 06:36 PM
If the death star was so big and technologically advanced why could they not spend some money on a targeting computer for each gun so they can actually hit something!!! I mean come on, there were potentially thousands of gun turrets on the death star, and only a couple of dozen(?) fighters were hit? jeeze, i mean if some joe-shmoe from arkansaw can hit a flock of ducks with a shot gun from several hundred feet away cant a highly advanced civilization make up a computer that can hit a machine that is at least 30 feet long?

Also if they make a computer that can calculate the trajectory of a hyperspace jump agcross a GALAXY!! why can't they shoot a lowly fighter?

Finally even with the exhaust port into space, the difference in pressure would cause hurricane force winds to blow out of the tube along with the supposed superheated material coming from the generator which would instantly vaporize and blow away anything coming towards it. Plus how can a torpedo or missle(whatever he used to destroy the death star) make a 90 degree turn down a narrow tube?

Well my rant is over, umm... Here is some advice for all. Remember this for the rest of your life, it might come in handy one day...."never ever fight with a turtle, they will always win..."

sadprince
2002-Jul-06, 09:36 AM
Come to think of it, why call it the "Death Star?" More of an Austin Powers thing than Star wars. I'm suprised the Rebel Forces didn't wet themselves laughing.

Perhaps in Episode III we'll get to see the scene where the marketing team for the Death Star propose the name to Darth and the gang. I'd go watch it for that alone.

Conrad
2002-Jul-08, 12:30 PM
The lead designer of the "Interstellar Combat Platform Mk I" (a.k.a. the Death Star"), one Al Fr Ednewman, only ever considered that his design would be attacked by capital ships of similar size to Star Destroyers. Shortly before his final interview with Mr D Vader, the designer is reported to have said "Attacked by swarms of little bitty fighters? What, me worry?"

g99
2002-Jul-08, 08:19 PM
On 2002-07-08 08:30, Conrad wrote:
The lead designer of the "Interstellar Combat Platform Mk I" (a.k.a. the Death Star"), one Al Fr Ednewman, only ever considered that his design would be attacked by capital ships of similar size to Star Destroyers. Shortly before his final interview with Mr D Vader, the designer is reported to have said "Attacked by swarms of little bitty fighters? What, me worry?"



Yes all of those Empire people were a little MAD (Pun intednded)

jokergirl
2002-Aug-25, 09:29 PM
Sounds to me the only reason to build a death star at all would be the good old game theory applied in Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb.
Was there another Empire around to have a cold war with?

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

David Hall
2002-Aug-25, 09:46 PM
On 2002-07-01 13:36, David Hall wrote:
If you recall, in the first movie, the fighters mentioned passing through the defensive shields. So I think Silas is right here. The small ships somehow were able to make their way through defenses that larger ships couldn't. Perhaps this was another weakness they found in the plans, a gap in the shields, or a way to counteract them.


I just thought of another point to add to my own argument here. In TESB, the Imperial fleet couldn't assault the rebel base on Hoth from space. So they sent in ground troops to knock out the shield generators before they could land. This means there must have been some way for smaller landing ships to breach the shields. Probably in this case, they walked in at ground level. Perhaps the shield just wasn't able to create a seamless barrier on the ground.

In The Pantom Menace too, the droid army couldn't fire through the Gungan shields, but they were able to step through them. So perhaps shields only stop energy and high-velocity attacks, whereas slow-moving objects can pass through. (similar to the shields used in Dune).

Valiant Dancer
2002-Aug-26, 04:17 PM
On 2002-06-27 09:49, sadprince wrote:
Yes, the death star must have cost a few empire tax dollars.

Now how about the second death star. Here's my theory on how that blew up so easily...

It was made of wood. Yes, you heard me. Well that was the only resource on the planet with the silly teddy bears....

Or maybe they were building the bits on another industrial planet and then importing the parts one by one. Only a few light years for each girder. Nahhhh... It was WOOD!


So, it weighed the same as a duck and was a witch? (Sorry, couldn't resist the obvious Monty Python joke.)

tjm220
2002-Aug-26, 04:25 PM
So, it weighed the same as a duck and was a witch? (Sorry, couldn't resist the obvious Monty Python joke.)



Bacta tanks to reverse newt conversions?

Valiant Dancer
2002-Aug-26, 04:26 PM
On 2002-06-28 21:42, Silas wrote:


On 2002-06-28 20:00, DALeffler wrote:
Aim an asteroid at the DS and have it come out of hyperspace about 20k miles away from the DS. Make sure to give that asteroid a velocity around 150k miles per second.

Repeat as necesssary.

You don't even need an asteroid. One of them big 'ol freighters should do the job. Tell C3PO to pilot the thing. Better yet, program C3PO to do the job.


I like the theory...but the Star Wars universe has force field technology, and so I suspect such an assault could be deflected.

Counter-argument: so why did the original Death Star allow a bunch of puny little fighters to come within attack range?

Counter-counter-argument: the little on-board R2 units were able to modulate the local field strengths and heterodyne holes just large enough for fighters, whereas bigger ships would have been repelled.

Counter-(to the nth power)-arguments are, alas, easy to construct...

Silas



I don't think so. In the second movie, a VSD (Victory class Star Destroyer) gets whacked by an asteroid into the command tower while Vader is chasing Han Solo. (Why they needed four VSD's to chase one puny freighter is beyond me.)

There is a limit to how much force the deflector technology can soak. Big honkin' huge solid rocks is gonna leave a real big dent. Remember, these ships and stations are mostly empty space.

nebularain
2002-Aug-30, 11:17 PM
For real or for fun?

Thousands of Australians claim to follow the Jedi religion.
http://tlc.discovery.com/news/afp/20020826/jedi.html

May the Force be with you.

overrated
2002-Aug-31, 12:02 AM
That Jedi story is just a myth. Like Santa Claus. Or beer destroying brain cells.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm

nebularain
2002-Aug-31, 12:20 AM
Odd that a myth like that would be put up on The Learning Channel website. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Thanks for keeping me straight. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

FP
2002-Aug-31, 01:28 AM
This Jedi thing may have started as an urban legend, but many Australians took it to heart.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2218456.stm

Sum0
2002-Aug-31, 01:35 PM
Why they needed four VSD's to chase one puny freighter is beyond me.


Well, on TV and in the movies they always send a couple of the grunts to take down James Bond, or a solitary jeep to blow up Superman, or something like that. And James Bond/Superman always wins. Obviously Vader realised that when you're dealing with the hero, there's no such thing as overkill. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Someone said that you could chuck the asteroid at the shield generator instead of the Death Star to bring down the shield (to presumably chuck another asteroid at the DS). But Endor was protected by the shield generator as well - that's why Han has to ask for the shield to be disabled so they can land on the moon.

Anyway, blowing up the shield generator was a bad idea - now all those cute ewoks will be killed by DS debris...

David Hall
2002-Aug-31, 01:54 PM
On 2002-08-26 12:26, Valiant Dancer wrote:

I don't think so. In the second movie, a VSD (Victory class Star Destroyer) gets whacked by an asteroid into the command tower while Vader is chasing Han Solo. (Why they needed four VSD's to chase one puny freighter is beyond me.)

There is a limit to how much force the deflector technology can soak. Big honkin' huge solid rocks is gonna leave a real big dent. Remember, these ships and stations are mostly empty space.

That's probably why the VSD got whacked. I don't remember that scene very well, but it would seem to me that in flying through that asteroid field, the shields were probably taking a lot of punishment. Chances are, that one just managed to overload the shields and slip through.

But there's also a difference in shield strength between the Star Destroyers and the Death Star. Pounding a SD with asteroids would probably eventually disrupt the shields, but the deflector shields on the DS were probably planetary class in strength, able to take just about anything you could conceivably throw at them.

Firefox
2002-Aug-31, 02:27 PM
I think there's a general consensus at sites like stardestroyer.net that the ship that was hit by the asteroid probably had its bridge deflectors down, while they were communicating with Vader.

I'm also under the impression that the globes atop the bridge towers were not shield generators, but perhaps had sensor or communications functions. I mean, other ships that have deflector shields don't have similar objects mounted on their hull, and the Executor super star destroyer had not just the two on top of the bridge, but *eight* such globes around the dorsal superstructure.

Also, those were Imperator class star destroyers in ESB. Victory class destroyers have more antenna arrays on their towers, and side fairings on the hull:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/egvv/vsd-eg2.gif


-Adam

Conrad
2002-Aug-31, 11:24 PM
On 2002-08-31 10:27, Firefox wrote:
I think there's a general consensus at sites like stardestroyer.net that the ship that was hit by the asteroid probably had its bridge deflectors down, while they were communicating with Vader.

I'm also under the impression that the globes atop the bridge towers were not shield generators, but perhaps had sensor or communications functions. I mean, other ships that have deflector shields don't have similar objects mounted on their hull, and the Executor super star destroyer had not just the two on top of the bridge, but *eight* such globes around the dorsal superstructure.

Also, those were Imperator class star destroyers in ESB. Victory class destroyers have more antenna arrays on their towers, and side fairings on the hull:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/egvv/vsd-eg2.gif


-Adam



Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

(Touch of envy in tone)

You guys waste your time in the most interesting ways.

(Goes back to painting 1/300 scale model tank)

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kizarvexis
2002-Aug-31, 11:51 PM
Conrad,
If you want to paint minis *and* discuss the fictional quality of Sci-Fi spacecraft (Babylon 5 in this case), go to the site below.

http://b5wars.agentsofgaming.com/

Kizarvexis
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-08-31 19:52 ]</font>

Sum0
2002-Sep-01, 10:39 AM
I'm also under the impression that the globes atop the bridge towers were not shield generators, but perhaps had sensor or communications functions. I mean, other ships that have deflector shields don't have similar objects mounted on their hull, and the Executor super star destroyer had not just the two on top of the bridge, but *eight* such globes around the dorsal superstructure.
-Adam


Well, as we slide into geekiness further, i'm pretty sure the globes are shield generators. In ROTJ, a ship blows up the globes on a star destroyer, and then a A-wing crashes into the bridge, destroying it. Maybe just a coincidence, but it seems pretty likely to me. Other ships with shields don't have globes because they presumably have a different kind of generator.

So anyway, what's with the hyperdrive motivators on the Death Star? Surely the immense power required for the ion engine coils would destabilize the power convertors, causing implosion of the main reactors? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Really, getting too technical about Star Wars is completely against the point. Go watch Star Trek. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Firefox
2002-Sep-01, 03:49 PM
Well, as we slide into geekiness further, i'm pretty sure the globes are shield generators. In ROTJ, a ship blows up the globes on a star destroyer, and then a A-wing crashes into the bridge, destroying it. Maybe just a coincidence, but it seems pretty likely to me. Other ships with shields don't have globes because they presumably have a different kind of generator.

I think it's coincidence more than anything. Consider that they destroyed only one globe. They would've had to take out not only the other one on the tower, but the other six around the bridge tower, as well. The destruction of the globe was a big indicator that their deflector shields had gone out.


So anyway, what's with the hyperdrive motivators on the Death Star? Surely the immense power required for the ion engine coils would destabilize the power convertors, causing implosion of the main reactors? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Really, getting too technical about Star Wars is completely against the point. Go watch Star Trek. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



Only if you want to say Wars technology is as dangerous and unstable as technology in Star Trek. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


-Adam

n810
2002-Sep-02, 06:06 PM
Hmm... firing the superlaser through the defensive shield on the Death Star (all versions, including the miniture beta test model on the work bench in Vaders garage).

Anybody ever see Spaceballs? All you have to do to get through the shield is open the big glass door!!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

g99
2002-Sep-02, 06:15 PM
yah but you have to have the code to open the door!!! Ummmm...Can anyone count down from 4?

n810
2002-Sep-02, 06:29 PM
Oh yeah... the code...

Well princesses(to many s's?) don't seem to be in short supply in galaxies far far away, just kidnap one and blackmail her fater for the code...

3...

2...

What the $%#( comes after 2?

Valiant Dancer
2002-Sep-03, 05:33 PM
On 2002-08-31 09:35, Sum0 wrote:


Why they needed four VSD's to chase one puny freighter is beyond me.


Well, on TV and in the movies they always send a couple of the grunts to take down James Bond, or a solitary jeep to blow up Superman, or something like that. And James Bond/Superman always wins. Obviously Vader realised that when you're dealing with the hero, there's no such thing as overkill. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Someone said that you could chuck the asteroid at the shield generator instead of the Death Star to bring down the shield (to presumably chuck another asteroid at the DS). But Endor was protected by the shield generator as well - that's why Han has to ask for the shield to be disabled so they can land on the moon.

Anyway, blowing up the shield generator was a bad idea - now all those cute ewoks will be killed by DS debris...



A fact borne out by the books.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html

Wedge's Gamble made reference to the extintion of the Ewoks by the fallout from the Death Star II. Complete climatic annihilation.

Also, If you'd remember the battle at Endor, the Super Star Destroyer Executor was rendered helpless and crashed into the surface of the second Death Star before the shields dropped. They could be overwhelmed.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Sep-03, 05:39 PM
On 2002-08-31 19:24, Conrad wrote:


On 2002-08-31 10:27, Firefox wrote:
I think there's a general consensus at sites like stardestroyer.net that the ship that was hit by the asteroid probably had its bridge deflectors down, while they were communicating with Vader.

I'm also under the impression that the globes atop the bridge towers were not shield generators, but perhaps had sensor or communications functions. I mean, other ships that have deflector shields don't have similar objects mounted on their hull, and the Executor super star destroyer had not just the two on top of the bridge, but *eight* such globes around the dorsal superstructure.

Also, those were Imperator class star destroyers in ESB. Victory class destroyers have more antenna arrays on their towers, and side fairings on the hull:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/egvv/vsd-eg2.gif


-Adam



Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

(Touch of envy in tone)

You guys waste your time in the most interesting ways.

(Goes back to painting 1/300 scale model tank)

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Hey! Reality is for those who can't handle Star Wars.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif


_________________
Valiant Dancer

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Valiant Dancer on 2002-09-03 13:42 ]</font>

darkhunter
2002-Nov-08, 12:51 PM
If I remember correctly from the books, the Interdictor Class Star Destroyers hed the globes--They were used to creat a gravity well to drop ships out of hyperspace.

Mainframes
2002-Nov-09, 03:21 PM
The balls on top of the Star Destroyers are definately Shield Generators. If any of you have played X-Wing or Tie Fighter then you'll find that they are.

Also in one of the tech manuals for Star Wars it discusses the design flaws in having exposed shield generators on Star Destroyers, in the shape of balls on top of the bridge.

btw not a star wars geek or anything just have strangly good memory for useless facts and figures...... (such as the combination to my luggage 5, 4, 3, 2, 1!)

Firefox
2002-Nov-09, 04:44 PM
On 2002-11-09 10:21, Mainframes wrote:
The balls on top of the Star Destroyers are definately Shield Generators. If any of you have played X-Wing or Tie Fighter then you'll find that they are.

Also in one of the tech manuals for Star Wars it discusses the design flaws in having exposed shield generators on Star Destroyers, in the shape of balls on top of the bridge.

Not necessarily. First off, you admitted you got some of your evidence from X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, which is on the bottom of the official ladder. Second, the stats you mention are from West End Games, who also published inaccurate figures for the length of the Executor. I tend to take their information with a grain of salt.

As far as the canon evidence is concerned, they are more likely sensor equipment of some sort, given their logical location. Also, why would you design shield generators that were exposed to attack?

At any rate, the A-Wing that smashed through the Executor's bridge wouldn't have done so, if they were shield generators, unless both globes were destroyed. There are also scenes in the movie of Star Destroyers with gouts of flame coming out of windows in the bridge tower, yet both globes are intact.


-Adam

Avatar28
2002-Nov-11, 08:25 PM
I just thought of another point to add to my own argument here. In TESB, the Imperial fleet couldn't assault the rebel base on Hoth from space. So they sent in ground troops to knock out the shield generators before they could land. This means there must have been some way for smaller landing ships to breach the shields. Probably in this case, they walked in at ground level. Perhaps the shield just wasn't able to create a seamless barrier on the ground.

In The Pantom Menace too, the droid army couldn't fire through the Gungan shields, but they were able to step through them. So perhaps shields only stop energy and high-velocity attacks, whereas slow-moving objects can pass through. (similar to the shields used in Dune).



It would also be just like the shields used in Independence Day. If you recall, they stopped things like bullets, nuclear bombs, blasters, mountainsides, etc yet a person could walk right up to and through them (witness the can shooting scene in area 51).

sarongsong
2002-Nov-16, 02:56 AM
How do things get "blowwn up" in space, complete with flames and pyrotechnics and all?
Ain't it supposed to be an oxygen-free vacuum?

Mainframes
2002-Nov-16, 02:15 PM
On 2002-11-15 21:56, sarongsong wrote:
How do things get "blowwn up" in space, complete with flames and pyrotechnics and all?
Ain't it supposed to be an oxygen-free vacuum?



Oxygen within the spacecraft allows the explosion. Maybe also fusion generators and the like. Either way the explosion would die off very quickly.

Chuck
2002-Dec-07, 04:53 PM
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200104/df20010402.jpg

darkhunter
2002-Dec-08, 09:50 PM
Looks like the standard-issue duex-ex-machina button installed on all big evil enemy spacecraft and mother ships. I've lost track of the movies where they didn't gaurd against something obvious and allowed the heros to win.

Star Wars (already covered), Independence Day (what happened to network security), just two off the top of my head.

My question is: Where are all the intellegent aliens?

tracer
2002-Dec-17, 11:35 PM
On 2002-08-25 17:46, David Hall wrote:
In The Pantom Menace too, the droid army couldn't fire through the Gungan shields, but they were able to step through them. So perhaps shields only stop energy and high-velocity attacks, whereas slow-moving objects can pass through. (similar to the shields used in Dune).
According to The Star Wars Encyclopedia, there are two kinds of shields in the Star Wars universe:

1. Ray shields. Also known as "deflectors" or simply "shields." These stop energy weapons such as blasters, but will not stop solid objects. Recall that during the rebel briefing before the assault on the Death Star, the guy said, "The exhaust port is ray shielded, so you'll have to use proton torpedoes" -- proton torpedoes are solid objects, like missiles which carry some kind of proton-based explosive warhead, and so are able to pass through ray shields unscathed.

2. Particle shields. These are referred to much less often. They are not "shields" in the traditional sci-fi sense of an invisible force field that envelops an object a few meters away from its surface. Particle shields are more like the structural integrity fields on Star Trek: TNG -- when switched on, they make the outer hull of a spacecraft "tougher" and more able to withstand physical impact.

Major Billy
2002-Dec-24, 05:55 AM
On 2002-06-28 15:18, Russ wrote:
Seen anybody building similar rivitments since?

Well, yes. GW Bush's so-called National Missile Defense system. (now what was its nick-name?)

Stuart
2003-Jan-03, 03:19 PM
Two of the biggest blunders in military history were Hitlers "Atlantic Wall" and the "Maginoux Line". The most successful section of Hitlers Atlantic Wall held off Allied troops for about 8 hours. The rest not even two. The Maginoux was bybassed, surrounded and neutralized without a fomal fight.

Blunders? Not really. The purpose of fixed fortifications is to economize on the numbers of troops required to hold a specific length of front. The forces freed up could then be used to establish large mobile reserve forces. Once hostilities break out, the fortifications delay and attrite the attackers, buying time for the mobile reserves to move to the threatened areas and to weaken the attackers, easing the job of mounting a counter-attack.

Both the Maginot Line and the Atlantic Wall did their parts of the equation successfully. What went wrong was that the Governments had not provided the necessary mobile reserves (France) or that combat attrition had left the mobile reserves weakened to the point of being ineffectual (Germany). As a result, the necessary system was left incomplete and it fell. As an example of what would have been achieved, imagine what the results of an armored counter-attack on the troops pinned down on Omaha Beach would have been.

Try Stalingrad and Kursk for the effects of a heavy defensive system properly supported by reserves.

As for Major Billy's comment, that's worthy of Bart Sibrel. Would anybody like to guess when the first successful hit-to-kill intercept of a ballistic missile took place?

This brings us to an important point. Please don't take what follows wrongly, its meant as constructive and helpful criticism, not as an insult or one-upmanship. I've picked up on a number of very careless statements about defense issues recently, primarily because of the damage they do to the credibility of the rest of the information here. Like most people, when evaluating a unfamiliar site, I look at information I know about and judge the accuracy of the rest by that standard. If I was a doctor, I would look at the medical information here; as a defense specialist, I look at the information thats related to the defense area. If I didn't know better (having been recommended to this site by people I respect) the defense-related comments made here and in another string would give a very poor first impression.

Defense and spaceflight share many attributes; they are both immensely complicated and the issues surrounding them defy easy analysis or quick answers. Both also have a lot of very unscrupulous enemies who are looking for ways of attacking the funding devoted to them. Mostly, they are the same enemies who want to take away the funding for both areas to allocate to their own specific interests (mostly seriously centralized government "social" programs). The exploration of space is far too important to give those enemies free ammunition by damaging the credibility of this fantastic information resource.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stuart on 2003-01-03 10:28 ]</font>

Rich
2003-Jan-03, 07:11 PM
Stuart,

It didn't sound like a "technical" critique to me, at least not in the context of the coversation. From a strategic sense there is much to criticize. I for one see an equivalent to the fixed fortifications discussed. Why spend billions (potentially trillions) to implement a system that is so easy to circumvent? I am much less worried about a ballistic missile attack than about a bomb smuggled into a major harbor aboard a boat or ship. We've taken steps to guard against that as well, but how well are we plugging that very big hole in the dam and how many other holes are there? We risk a total failure by only shoring up the most (politically) obvious cracks.

It seems aparent that choosing to focus so much attention and so very many resources on one technology that only guards against the least likely method of nuclear attack deserves to be questioned. Cheaper and more effective means, such as theater missile defense systems, are nearing the end of development and can stop attacking weapons in the ascent phase. These systems can stop the threat long before it reaches to U.S. and also defends against the more likely event of attacks against our deployed troops and overseas allies.

This reminds me very much of a great bit of history. I forget the name of the relevant Italian city-state, it's not really germaine anyway, so you'll have to forgive me. A few of the more learned men of this city state set about solving the constant problem of serious illness that had plagued the city for generations. Strategically, economically, and politically they were somewhat strong, but never seemd to be able to press an advantage because their population and productivity were static, general sickliness was keeping them down.

A few of these leaders finally hit on the idea that perhaps the nearby marshes were to blame. (Now, they knew nothing of germ theory. If I remember correctly they thought it was the swamp gases or something. In any case they came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.) So, they set about a huge civic project to drain the local swamps. The result was fantastic... people were healthier, the city was wealthier than ever before. The stability granted by the healthier and more productive populace allowed the city to expand and grow in power... at least for a few years. For, it wasn't long before their local rivals marched straight across the plains created by draining the previously impassable marshes and promptly conquered the city.

In focusing too narrowly on one strategic problem they totally ignored another strategic peril (just like the Death Star (although I guess what got them was more of a tactical design flaw, rather than strategic)). Might'n we be doing the same thing?

Stuart
2003-Jan-03, 07:38 PM
Why spend billions (potentially trillions) to implement a system that is so easy to circumvent? I am much less worried about a ballistic missile attack than about a bomb smuggled into a major harbor aboard a boat or ship.

Did you hear about the containership approaching Baltimore early in December? It was met 12 miles outside the harbor by a Coastguard cutter who put a boarding party on. The Coasties walked straight to a specific container and told the Captain to open it - their equipment had picked up and identified a radioactive trace froma considerable distance. Turned out to be innocent.

Covert delivery is much loved by novelists but its not a serious concern for those really involved in Homeland Security. Defenses are in oplace but they work best when nobody knows what they are. The container ship gives a hint as does the equipment made available to the NYPD for New Year. People building a device from stuff already here and then stolen is a greater concern.


It seems aparent that choosing to focus so much attention and so very many resources on one technology that only guards against the least likely method of nuclear attack deserves to be questioned. Cheaper and more effective means, such as theater missile defense systems, are nearing the end of development and can stop attacking weapons in the ascent phase. These systems can stop the threat long before it reaches to U.S. and also defends against the more likely event of attacks against our deployed troops and overseas allies.

Yes, but those systems are leaky. The best way is a multi-phase defense system. The reason why the terminal phase interceptors are going in now is that they are a demonstrated technology (we've been able to do that since 1962 - and before anybpdy mentions it, the decoy problem was solved a long, long time ago). The requirement now is to get something into place - at the moment if a missile is fired at the US, its going to hit and there is nothing we can do about it. Once a thin screen is in place we can thicken it up.


Might'n we be doing the same thing?


No, not really; nations that are nuclear-capable go to missiles for delivery for a very good reason; they are the best and most effective means of getting devices to targets. To be effective a nuclear deterrent must be both secure and effective. Secure means difficult to destroy on the ground and effective means its very likely to get to its target. Only missiles offer that combination.

However, this is very much a sideline for here. If you're interested in the realities of such things, why don't you come to this website.

http://pub82.ezboard.com/bhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862

And we can discuss it at length without using up the Bad Astronomer's bandwidth /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Valiant Dancer
2003-Jan-03, 08:57 PM
On 2003-01-03 10:19, Stuart wrote:

As for Major Billy's comment, that's worthy of Bart Sibrel. Would anybody like to guess when the first successful hit-to-kill intercept of a ballistic missile took place?


June, 1960. A NIKE HERCULES (builder: Redstone) antiaircraft guided missile tracked and shot down a CORPORAL ballistic missile at White Sands Missile Range, marking the first ballistic missile to be killed by a missile.

The first one specifically designed to intercept ballistic missiles.

1984. The hit to kill vehicle was built by Raytheon for ballistic missiles. It later deploys in the Persian Gulf as the Patriot anti-missile system.

What do I win?

Sources:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/firsts/firsts.html

http://raytheonmissiledefense.com/heritg/

Rich
2003-Jan-03, 09:10 PM
Did you hear about the containership approaching Baltimore early in December? It was met 12 miles outside the harbor by a Coastguard cutter who put a boarding party on. The Coasties walked straight to a specific container and told the Captain to open it - their equipment had picked up and identified a radioactive trace froma considerable distance. Turned out to be innocent.

Yep. The problem is the USCG is not capable of stopping and searching all ships. They only search those which have stopped in suspicious ports or who's crew and cargo paperwork don't check out. That's not to say that a ship that checks-out couldn't be up to no good.


Covert delivery is much loved by novelists...
And drug runners, and illegal immigrants... We couldn't stop a leaky boatload of 200 Haitains from getting ashore just a few months ago, remember.


...but its not a serious concern for those really involved in Homeland Security. Defenses are in oplace but they work best when nobody knows what they are. The container ship gives a hint as does the equipment made available to the NYPD for New Year.

True, in part. But those systems are not abundant and their deployment rests on a number of assumptions, including that the areas you choose to search are the areas your opponents will choose to target.


People building a device from stuff already here and then stolen is a greater concern.

Agreed, that this is a concern.


Yes, but those systems are leaky. The best way is a multi-phase defense system. The reason why the terminal phase interceptors are going in now is that they are a demonstrated technology (we've been able to do that since 1962 - and before anybpdy mentions it, the decoy problem was solved a long, long time ago). The requirement now is to get something into place - at the moment if a missile is fired at the US, its going to hit and there is nothing we can do about it. Once a thin screen is in place we can thicken it up.

The demonstrated reliability of the terminal phase interceptors is poor. If I count correctly all of the recent intercept tests fall into three categories: 1. Failure (the majority) 2. Rigged Hits (successful interceptions in which the interceptor was "helped" in finding or hitting the target by creating unrealistic test conditions and/or handicapping the target) 3. Total Success (if I recall correctly there has been exactly one of these since testing started back-up).

Now don't get me wrong, I believe the technology is viable... at a cost. We can get it working well, probably very well. But, what will the cost be? It appears the true end cost is being vastly underestimated.

And again, the bang for the buck is low. The number of hostile countries able to hit the U.S. at this time is exactly zero, though the N. Koreans seem to be on target to have us in range in 5 years or so. This is a terrible allocations of resources when any group who currently has the means and motive to deliver nuclear devices onto U.S. soil certain are not in possession of ICBMs.

Stuart
2003-Jan-06, 02:50 PM
On 2003-01-03 15:57, Valiant Dancer wrote: June, 1960. A NIKE HERCULES (builder: Redstone) antiaircraft guided missile tracked and shot down a CORPORAL ballistic missile at White Sands Missile Range, marking the first ballistic missile to be killed by a missile.

The first one specifically designed to intercept ballistic missiles.

1984. The hit to kill vehicle was built by Raytheon for ballistic missiles. It later deploys in the Persian Gulf as the Patriot anti-missile system. What do I win?
Sources:
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/firsts/firsts.html
http://raytheonmissiledefense.com/heritg/


Certainly; the first ICBM re-entry vehicle kill was actually in 1962 (by a Zeus missile). 57 of the 64 Zeus shots resulted in direct hits which was startling because the missile wasn't designe dto do that (the fact that it could was kept secret for a long time). A lot of the tests were Zeus-Herc because Herc came in so fast it made a difficult target.

As for prizes, nothing concrete I'm afraid, but if you're in Washington in late April, I'll introduce you to some really nice people who do this sort of thing (ABM/NMD) all the time.

Stuart
2003-Jan-06, 03:06 PM
Yep. The problem is the USCG is not capable of stopping and searching all ships. They only search those which have stopped in suspicious ports or who's crew and cargo paperwork don't check out. That's not to say that a ship that checks-out couldn't be up to no good.

The point is, they didn't do a random stop-and-search. They had equipment that detected a suspect signature on the ship from a considerable [classified] distance. I was at a defense show last year where one of these devices was demonstrated. It could detect and identify a suspect signature from an operationally useful range. Every ship approaching a US port is met by a pilot boat; if that pilot boat has one of these detectors, it will pick up any suspect signature. We know that the border patrol has at least 7,000 of those detectors because thats the number they loaned to the NYPD. How many they actually have is unknown.


And drug runners, and illegal immigrants... We couldn't stop a leaky boatload of 200 Haitains from getting ashore just a few months ago, remember.

Thats a red herring argument. Nuclear devices are very different from illegal immigrants.


True, in part. But those systems are not abundant and their deployment rests on a number of assumptions, including that the areas you choose to search are the areas your opponents will choose to target.

Thats a faulty assumption; look at the number of detectors loaned to the NYPD. 7,000. They're almost certainly the older, surplus ones.


The demonstrated reliability of the terminal phase interceptors is poor. If I count correctly all of the recent intercept tests fall into three categories: 1. Failure (the majority) 2. Rigged Hits (successful interceptions in which the interceptor was "helped" in finding or hitting the target by creating unrealistic test conditions and/or handicapping the target) 3. Total Success (if I recall correctly there has been exactly one of these since testing started back-up).

Not so; all of the tests have demonstrated the things they were supposed to demonstrate (in most cases, actually hitting the target is incidental). I would point out that 67 of the first 71 TOW anti-tank missiles failed to hit their targets and every single one of the first 36 Gabriel anti-ship missile test shots went into the sea. Both weapons went on to be highly successful.


Now don't get me wrong, I believe the technology is viable... at a cost. We can get it working well, probably very well. But, what will the cost be?

Much less than the cost of an incinerated city - and it wouldn't stop there. There's a saying in The Business. One flies, they all fly. Any suggestion that a limited nuclear exchange can take place without escalating to a full strategic exchange is kumbaya-world. ABM is the only way to break out of that trap.


It appears the true end cost is being vastly underestimated.

Really? Actually, its the costs quoted by ABM opponents that are vastly inflated.


And again, the bang for the buck is low. The number of hostile countries able to hit the U.S. at this time is exactly zero, though the N. Koreans seem to be on target to have us in range in 5 years or so. This is a terrible allocations of resources when any group who currently has the means and motive to deliver nuclear devices onto U.S. soil certain are not in possession of ICBMs.

Not so. China can dump 24 devices on us, Russian several hundred. In theory at least the UK and France could dump 200 each. Say again, covert delivery is not a problem. Missiles are. And they are proliferating very fast.

However, be all that as it may, could I again suggest to you (and anybody else who wants to push this discussion further) this isn't really the place for this discussion. Instead, come to the website I gave you - its got a section devoted to ABM/NMD and its virtues. Warning - the site is heavily dominated by people who work in or for the military and its approach reflects that.

Rich
2003-Jan-06, 03:07 PM
Important point: Those missiles were not targeting and bringing down warheads on re-entry, as the current BMD system is designed to do. They targeted various stages of missile bodies; a much larger, slower, and lower target. Very big difference.

Stuart
2003-Jan-06, 03:24 PM
On 2003-01-06 10:07, Rich wrote:
Important point: Those missiles were not targeting and bringing down warheads on re-entry, as the current BMD system is designed to do. They targeted various stages of missile bodies; a much larger, slower, and lower target. Very big difference.


The Zeus Shots? Or the various others? We scored hits on both inbound missiles (mid-course intercept) and re-entry vehicles (terminal intercept) with various types of Zeus and Herc. There was a specialized terminal interceptor called Sprint that was specifically designed to knock down RVs. That also worked pretty well. There's no real problem with any of this stuff; it was all sorted out decades ago. The problems now are linking everything into an effective system.

Rich
2003-Jan-06, 03:42 PM
The point is, they didn't do a random stop-and-search.

This is the key statement and why I singled it out. It's incorrect. The ship was pre-identified as suspicious from transmitted port and crew logs and was searched due to this. Many other ships which "check-out" are not searched.


Thats a red herring argument. Nuclear devices are very different from illegal immigrants.

Not at all. This point was used to illustrate that many tons of illegal goods and people penetrate our borders every day, sometimes floating right up to the beach in heavily populated urban centers. The creaky flotsam carrying the Haitians was never even spotted, let alone searched, until it was within 200 yards of shore.


Thats a faulty assumption; look at the number of detectors loaned to the NYPD. 7,000. They're almost certainly the older, surplus ones.

You make my point for me. This scenario assumes that 1) NYPD can cover everywhere in NY that terrorists might be ready to strike; 2) The device is nuclear in nature; 3) That NYC is even a target. We presume to know where and when an attack will come.


Not so; all of the tests have demonstrated the things they were supposed to demonstrate (in most cases, actually hitting the target is incidental). I would point out that 67 of the first 71 TOW anti-tank missiles failed to hit their targets and every single one of the first 36 Gabriel anti-ship missile test shots went into the sea. Both weapons went on to be highly successful.

I'll accede this point.


Much less than the cost of an incinerated city - and it wouldn't stop there. There's a saying in The Business. One flies, they all fly. Any suggestion that a limited nuclear exchange can take place without escalating to a full strategic exchange is kumbaya-world. ABM is the only way to break out of that trap.

There's a problem with this argument: It's not the one the current administration is using to justify this domestically or internationally. It has been billed as a defence against attacks from "rogue nations" not one of which, currently, is capable of hitting the CONUS. The administration, in fact, has gone to great lengths to parse BMD in terms of "rogue nations" and neither China nor Russia fit that bill.


Not so. China can dump 24 devices on us, Russian several hundred. In theory at least the UK and France could dump 200 each. Say again, covert delivery is not a problem. Missiles are. And they are proliferating very fast.

No one in the administration even tries to make this about the Chinese, they're on our side again. The Russians? The biggest threat the Russians pose to us is that they can't control the egress of nuclear materials, and possibly warheads from their borders. So, where are these ICBMs coming from again?

The system as planned can not put a dent in the full-blown exchange you describe above. As currently planned it could only stop a limited exchange. As you put it "one flies, they all fly". So, if the goal is to make an impact during a large-scale exchange, why is the system only being planned and implemented to stop a limited number of missiles? Or are we (the U.S.) lying drastically about our motivations and plans?


Really? Actually, its the costs quoted by ABM opponents that are vastly inflated.

Maybe we'll have to through some dollar figures up.

I'll say it again: This is a terrible allocations of resources when the groups our gov't is avowedly concerned about and who currently have the means and motive to deliver nuclear devices onto U.S. soil certain are not in possession of ICBMs.

Stuart
2003-Jan-06, 04:09 PM
On 2003-01-06 10:42, Rich wrote: This is the key statement and why I singled it out. It's incorrect. The ship was pre-identified as suspicious from transmitted port and crew logs and was searched due to this. Many other ships which "check-out" are not searched.

No, its not. The point is that equipment is available that detects signatures from an operationally useful range. Of course that equipment is part of a system that uses input from other sources; that doesn't change the point.


Not at all. This point was used to illustrate that many tons of illegal goods and people penetrate our borders every day, sometimes floating right up to the beach in heavily populated urban centers. The creaky flotsam carrying the Haitians was never even spotted, let alone searched, until it was within 200 yards of shore.

Said its a red herring, will repeat it. Its irrelevent. We're not talking about large quantities drifing ashore with a variable degree of attrition via detection. We are talking of a single large object that, under no circumstances must be detected or interdicted. totally different problem.


You make my point for me. This scenario assumes that 1) NYPD can cover everywhere in NY that terrorists might be ready to strike; 2) The device is nuclear in nature; 3) That NYC is even a target. We presume to know where and when an attack will come.

You're missing the point. You stated that the equipment used to detect nuclear materials were not widely issued. This shows that the stuff is widely issued, to the point where thousands of systems can be loaned from one agency to another for a specific purpose.


There's a problem with this argument: It's not the one the current administration is using to justify this domestically or internationally. It has been billed as a defence against attacks from "rogue nations" not one of which, currently, is capable of hitting the CONUS. The administration, in fact, has gone to great lengths to parse BMD in terms of "rogue nations" and neither China nor Russia fit that bill.

So what?


No one in the administration even tries to make this about the Chinese, they're on our side again. The Russians? The biggest threat the Russians pose to us is that they can't control the egress of nuclear materials, and possibly warheads from their borders. So, where are these ICBMs coming from again?

Again, so what?


The system as planned can not put a dent in the full-blown exchange you describe above. As currently planned it could only stop a limited exchange. As you put it "one flies, they all fly". So, if the goal is to make an impact during a large-scale exchange, why is the system only being planned and implemented to stop a limited number of missiles? Or are we (the U.S.) lying drastically about our motivations and plans?

The reason why one flies they all fly is because if any missile is launched at the USA for any reason (accidentally or deliberately) it is going to hit. There is nothing save an Act of God that can stop it. Think about that for a second. If a missile launch is detected, within 20 minutes approximately half a million Americans will be dead or dying. You saw the result when the 9/11 attack killed 3,000 Americans; whatinhell do you think will happen when the death toll is half a million? Very easy. The country that the missile came from will be reduced to a radioactive slagheap. They know that; they'll fire whatever's left in order to try and reduce the ferocity of the impending response by nailing missiles on the ground. You can take the escalation from there. ABm menas we can shoot down that single inbound and buy time to either find out whatever happened or talk some sense into the shooters.

The US, UK and France have spent billions on nuclear C4I networks to prevent accidents with nuclear weapons. The Russians did but their system has fallen apart. The Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese bought cell phones (hyperbole but closer to the truth than you think). That C4I deficiency means that accidents are much more likely to happen.


I'll say it again: This is a terrible allocations of resources when the groups our gov't is avowedly concerned about and who currently have the means and motive to deliver nuclear devices onto U.S. soil certain are not in possession of ICBMs.


So you would rather wait until Seattle goes skywards on a North Korean fireball then buy defenses? Great logic. Say again, this is the wrong place for this discussion; I strongly urge you to take this to the boatrd I gave you.

Kaptain K
2003-Jan-06, 05:41 PM
There's a saying in The Business. One flies, they all fly. Any suggestion that a limited nuclear exchange can take place without escalating to a full strategic exchange is kumbaya-world.
Expand this to: One goes off, they all fly. This is what scares me about the seemingly inevitable confrontation that is about to occur. Assuming Hussein has one or two nukes, what is to keep him from using it(them) against ground forces in Iraq. Result; half hour later, Iraq is a slag heap. One hour later, the world is a smoking ruin! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif As some have said: "Which is more frightening, a rogue who wants nukes, or a "cowboy" with 10,000 of them." I don't trust the current U.S. administration.

Stuart
2003-Jan-06, 07:05 PM
On 2003-01-06 12:41, Kaptain K wrote:
I don't trust the current US administration.
You mean there's a government somewhere you do trust?


As some have said: "Which is more frightening, a rogue who wants nukes, or a "cowboy" with 10,000 of them."
Actually, there are no cowboys in the vicinity of nuclear weapons. The truth is quite the reverse; once people get the message on what these things will do, they get very, very cautious. This is a phenomenom called "Strategic Paralysis" - the possibility that a given course of action may lead to a nuclear holocaust means that any decision taken is done with reference to likely consequences six or seven steps down the line.


Assuming Hussein has one or two nukes, what is to keep him from using it(them) against ground forces in Iraq. Result; half hour later, Iraq is a slag heap. One hour later, the world is a smoking ruin!

We're reasonably certain Saddam Hussein hasn't got a functional nuclear device; there is a considerable body of evidence that suggests North Korea has; that explains the vastly different ways the two countries are being treated.

Ballistic missiles are a uniquely dangerous threat simply because they can't be stopped. Bombers can be shot down, artillery can be eliminated by bombing or counter-battery fire, "covert" cargoes can and probably would be intercepted. However, once a ballistic missile is on its way, at the moment there is no way to stop it - once the boost phase is over, that missile will hit its target. Thats the importance of ABM - its adds another safety catch between the missile sitting in its silo and Armageddon.

Starshark
2003-Jan-08, 10:40 AM
On 2002-08-30 19:17, nebularain wrote:
For real or for fun?

Thousands of Australians claim to follow the Jedi religion.
http://tlc.discovery.com/news/afp/20020826/jedi.html

May the Force be with you.



Real. Here's the context.

Australia, as many aren't tired of pointing out, was invaded by a convict colony. These convicts, along with British soldiers (presumably ones who had a habit of talking back to their commanding officers), beat the indigenous population into submission using a variety of means, including dumb luck.

The convict culture has lead to many Australians rejecting authority, ridiculing the 'wowsers' (puritains), and generally giving an order to an Aussie is like waving a red rag to a bull.

I beleive Evelyn Waugh, in one of his books, described a major chastising an Irish soldier who saluted badly as: "even an Australian can salute better than that. You're on report."

Around the time of the census a few years back, some wags (people who like to stir the pot) suggested they would say their religion is a Jedi Knight. This was partly a way for people to express fear that census information would fall into the hands of markters and advetisers: something that has happened before. Aussies hate junk mail.

Anyway, some politician -forget his name, but he must've been a real wowser- said that if 'anyone said they were part of an illegitmate religion -like Jedi Knight- would be prosecuted with the full force of the law'. This sort of thing, as I've mentioned before, is the red rag to a bull.

So naturally everyone voted Jedi. Come and get us, we said.

I put down "Extreme Left-Wing Chapter of the L Ron Hubbard Scientoligist Hit Squad". Oops, shouldn't say that, in today's paranoid environment I'll probably be question for 48 hours as a terrorist. Oh, no I won't, I don't look Muslim.

(/rant)

Tuckerfan
2003-Jan-09, 01:22 AM
Uh, Starshark, have you seen this site: http://www.jediism.org/ ? If it's a joke, they seem pretty serious about it.

Kaptain K
2003-Jan-09, 11:23 AM
You mean there's a government somewhere you do trust?
No. Actually, I was mincing my words, trying to be polite. What I should have said is:

"The current administration scares the P1$$ out of me like none since that of Ronnie Raygun."

AKONI
2003-Jan-09, 04:49 PM
Stuart:

Thanks for posting the link to that BB. I've been looking for something like that.

Starshark
2003-Jan-12, 10:27 AM
On 2003-01-08 20:22, Tuckerfan wrote:
Uh, Starshark, have you seen this site: http://www.jediism.org/ ? If it's a joke, they seem pretty serious about it.



I'm not saying that there aren't people who take it seriously. I'm just saying that the increase in the number of people saying they were Jedi in the Aussie census were just reacting to the wowsers.

Zombywoof (Jedi Knight)
2003-Jan-19, 09:03 PM
Why did they build another? Good question. First of all the bad guys never have budget cuts. And also take a look at Babylon 5. They built 5 of them. I guess they had quite a budget and determination in that series too. In fact I like that series a lot.

James_Digriz
2003-Jan-21, 05:32 AM
Actually, they built the second one to obliterate Jar-Jar-Binks and whatever planet he happened to be on before he appeared in the new Star Wars shows but alas...

James_Digriz
2003-Jan-25, 04:23 AM
On 2003-01-08 20:22, Tuckerfan wrote:
Uh, Starshark, have you seen this site: http://www.jediism.org/ ? If it's a joke, they seem pretty serious about it.



They say on page one that it has nothing to do with the Jedi from Lucasfilm. Seems to be more about meditation.

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-25, 04:31 AM
On 2003-01-24 23:23, James_Digriz wrote:
They say on page one that it has nothing to do with the Jedi from Lucasfilm. Seems to be more about meditation.

From the News article link on that page (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/reply.php?topic=1599&forum=4&post=53233&quote=1): "'We do agree with the ideas behind the myth and fantasy,' JediLight said, 'But that is where our similarities end.'" In other words, they don't have functioning light sabers. Yet.

Reacher
2003-Apr-23, 04:28 AM
Joker girls been around a while, yet she doesnt have many posts... did you leave for a while?

g99
2003-Apr-23, 04:38 AM
If you are talking to Grapes

Here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3741) Is the answer. :-) Think of him as evolving.

tierradelfuego
2007-Oct-10, 03:31 PM
The question of its *cost,* now: there's a big one! Who's paying for these things?
Silas

Papa Palpatine is paying for it (with the help of some loans):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y91RRfDlG4

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-11, 12:41 AM
Sith never have budget cuts, and their solar sails always work. But before you think that we need a few down here, remember that Palpatine nearly nixed Outbound Flight (aka Star Wars SETI)

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-11, 12:54 AM
Papa Palpatine is paying for it (with the help of some loans):

Just curious - why are you responding to a post from mid 2002? Silas apparently hasn't posted since early 2003 (that's before I started on BAUT!) and his "last visit" is showing '69 (which just means it was never set - no time travel involved here!).

Delvo
2007-Oct-11, 03:00 AM
Miserable failure is too harsh. It really had one small design flaw. (True, it led to a fatal crash, but how many people really need that floating point divide?) Besides, with only one planet destroyed, it was still in beta testing. And we can not judge Death Star v.2 since it really never even made it to the alpha testing....although it was already at least partially operational despite not looking finished...

Anyway, you almost just described the story of the Bismarck. It was the biggest and most powerful battleship of its time (WWII), it destroyed one of the ships the British were the most proud of with an unprecedented single shot creating a massive explosion which blew up the whole ship at once instead of by a gradual sinking from cumulative damage, the British undertook a big dramatic mission to get it, an obscure little "design flaw" allowed it to be disabled by a cheesy little weapon that should have been nothing to it, the British fleet caught up with it and ganged up on it and sank it on only its ninth day out...

...and it even had a successor, another ship of the Bismarck class named Tirpitz, which was still under construction when the British sank it by aerial bombing.