nukes

[Burger]

Hacking is taking contol of or invading someones network. I know I am a US Navy Electronic warfare technician.

Totally wrong, but a common misconception amongst non-technical people. Here is an excerpt from an excellent document:

There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term ‘hacker’. Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker.

There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.

The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.

(Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html)

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

the show fails when nukes are involved what was really needed was half pie decent writers that can think beyond the current shows plot

still i don't see why the game can't go down the nuke path. Make it a one shot wonder that does heaps of damage then thats it can't be used for the rest of the game unless Sheridan on board then you can have as many nukes as ya want cause he carrys them around in brief case's :lol:

The Nuke attack was referred to in dialogue as far back as Series 2, long before it was seen in In the Beginning. during the Earth-Minbari war the biggest problem facing Earthforce was that they couldn't target Minbari ships with regular weapons, let alone nukes.

In ItB, as I recall there's dialogue that at least suggests that nukes are a last resort option and them being carried aboard Lexington was due to the extraordinary circumstances, and even then the only reason they took out the Black Star was luck and clever manipulaiton onf observed Minbari tactics

And as people have mentioned above, nukes aren't really a great weapon for use in space - on Earth a nuke's main destructive force comes from the intense burst of heat and hard radiation which is concentrated in a realtively small area, but in space that's dispersed much quicker, and the sort of ranges you'll be firing over make a direct hit very unlikely. For all we know, the double-or triple-damage missiles EA have access to are tactical nukes, abstracted to average damage from near misses as well; or even direct hits, because we have no solid numbers for the damage output of any weapon, or the ability of ship armour to withstand damage.

(that was my entry into the 2008 Umberto Eco run-on sentence awards)

In a lot of SF series, the term nuclear warhead actually refers to a laser battery mounted in a missile and fuelled by a nuclear explosion. Off the top of my head both the Traveller RPG and Honor Harrington novels use this type of weapon.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The Honorverse makes a distinction between bomb-pumped laser warheads (laser heads) and traditional nuclear weapons (nukes). It does, however, mention that nukes are very poor in ship-to-ship combat and tend to be used by pirates with poor point defence or against static defences that can't actively evade them.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I've only read the first few books, and none of them mentioned Pirates, so I assume the traditional nukes come in later in the series.

But going back to the depiction of Black Star's destruction, there's far too many unanswered variables to start asking for nuclear warheads to be used as a standard weapon - Were the nukes tactical or strategic yield? How close was Black Star to the mine when it went off? How much damage was from heat and radiation, and how much from debris in the asteroid field accelerated to high speeds by the blast? How much damage can a Sharlin take anyway?

 

[Shadow Queen]

They were Tactical Nukes taken from the warheads of missiles or mines did not state what.

possably used for mine / asteroid clearing.

 

[Taran]

The Honorverse makes a distinction between bomb-pumped laser warheads (laser heads) and traditional nuclear weapons (nukes). It does, however, mention that nukes are very poor in ship-to-ship combat and tend to be used by pirates with poor point defence or against static defences that can't actively evade them.

With the exception that when you DO get a direct hit on a regular warship, it still really messes them up. Remember what a single Nuke did to the Saladin in "Honor of the Queesn" and how they said that only the Q-Ship's vast size compared to real warships allowed it to absorb a couple nuke hits when the Fearless's laser-head ammo ran low...

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Well yes, but it required a direct hit to achieve that amount of damage, and that's not easy...

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

They were Tactical Nukes taken from the warheads of missiles or mines did not state what.

possably used for mine / asteroid clearing.

Yeah, I just checked the Lurker's guide, which says Sheridan ordered the weapons officer to remove three tactical nuclear warheads and place them on asteroids. So we know they were probably relatively low-yield then. Sadly, I don't have the movies on DVD yet, and my video copy is in my parents' place, so I can't check the exact dialogue.

 

[Knight of ne]

Could it be possible that the nukes were actually nicked from the engines of the lexington then given to the weapon officers to jimmyrig so they would detonate when they place them out into the asteroids.

its a wild theory thats probably a load of horse hockey.

Knight of ne.

 

[Shadow Queen]

Could it be possible that the nukes were actually nicked from the engines of the lexington then given to the weapon officers to jimmyrig so they would detonate when they place them out into the asteroids.

its a wild theory thats probably a load of horse hockey.

Knight of ne.

No they had the Nukes for mine / Asteroid clearing.

I do love repeating myself ... not

3 posts above or watch the movie. or get the 1st edition Earth Minbari war.

 

[dag'karlove]

Hacking is taking contol of or invading someones network. I know I am a US Navy Electronic warfare technician.

Totally wrong, but a common misconception amongst non-technical people. Here is an excerpt from an excellent document:

There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term ‘hacker’. Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker.

There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.

The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.

(Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html)

Well Thank you for that it was informative. However, I should clarify that The US DOD (Department of defense) does not define it in this way. And as for being a non technical person, Well I have a Bachelors Degree In Applied engineering (Emphasis on RF propogation). I would say that I am a fairly technical savvy person. Thank you again for the information. This way when i talk to people who do this in the non US military world and choose to use thier talents for monetary gain instead of for the defense of thier country i can speak and not sound like an ass.

 

[Taran]

Making money's not a crime...

 

[dag'karlove]

Never said it was. I However beleive in something bigger than money. That is why i choose to do what i do instead of the 6 figure salary i have been offered twice.

 

[David Anla Shok']

Never said it was. I However beleive in something bigger than money. That is why i choose to do what i do instead of the 6 figure salary i have been offered twice.

Besides, you get to blow stuff up on occasion. Always an incentive for me. ;>

 

[Juzza]

how ever you use a nuke, when it comes to bang for size you can't go past them. Even in space where the effects as nuke is limited they still cause a bigger explosion then a normal warhead and should cause more damage when a ship is hit by a nuke.

 

[Burger]

And as for being a non technical person, Well I have a Bachelors Degree In Applied engineering (Emphasis on RF propogation).

Ah, engineering. That says it all, really :lol:

 

[wkehrman]

But going back to the depiction of Black Star's destruction, there's far too many unanswered variables to start asking for nuclear warheads to be used as a standard weapon - Were the nukes tactical or strategic yield? How close was Black Star to the mine when it went off? How much damage was from heat and radiation, and how much from debris in the asteroid field accelerated to high speeds by the blast? How much damage can a Sharlin take anyway?

Went back to In the Beginning just to get grounded for this, some things I noticed:

1) Firing Control reports "3 2 Megaton warheads with proximity fuses". It's been a while since I looked, but I always thought that "tactical" nukes ran in the 100 kT range.

2) The Lexington went and hid behind an asteroid to avoid getting damaged. How convenient that that particular asteroid was not pushed about.

3) The nukes look like mines, i.e., disk shaped and are fairly small relative to what one might expect for a 2 MT device. Rather than "warheads" which one would expect to be, uh, more, warheady shaped.

4) A Sharlin can take 60 damage, plus an additional 12-18 for blowing up instantly. Say that three nukes total ("In range of nuke 2, last one.") equals 75 points, 25 points per nuke.

5) It doesn't look like a whole lot of debris hits with the last nuke.

There is one notable issue in all of this: the asteroids and, with the last blast, the Sharlin all appear to be pushed by the shockwave. I thought that sort of shockwave needed a medium through which to move. I'm not a scientist, though.

I think hiffano got it right. This is a plot device with a couple of WTF issues to it. Translating it into the game would cause more problems than it is worth. What about smaller or larger warheads? What about putting them in an asteroid field, empty space, nebula, gas giant, or orbital bomb?

 

[David Anla Shok']

how ever you use a nuke, when it comes to bang for size you can't go past them. Even in space where the effects as nuke is limited they still cause a bigger explosion then a normal warhead and should cause more damage when a ship is hit by a nuke.

Supposition on your part, really. Define "normal warhead". I would guess that most warheads would be atomic anyway. Chemical explosives wouldn't do near enough damage to justify their use.

 

[Taran]

Went back to In the Beginning just to get grounded for this, some things I noticed:

1) Firing Control reports "3 2 Megaton warheads with proximity fuses". It's been a while since I looked, but I always thought that "tactical" nukes ran in the 100 kT range.

Yes. I was involved in a discussion a couple months ago on this very same type of topic. Not sure where, I think it was a CBT forum (they do have Nuke rules in CBT now). Anyway, the human race, to date, has built very few Megaton level weapon. There Was, a single 50 M-ton device detonated by Russia that caused damage as far as 1,000 km away:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
So, anyway, in answer, 2 MTons is a BIG BOOM.

2) The Lexington went and hid behind an asteroid to avoid getting damaged. How convenient that that particular asteroid was not pushed about.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they were able to maitain position relative to that asteroid and got lucky in not being pushed into another one...

3) The nukes look like mines, i.e., disk shaped and are fairly small relative to what one might expect for a 2 MT device. Rather than "warheads" which one would expect to be, uh, more, warheady shaped.

And exactly what shape Does a warhead possess?
So long as the proposed carrier-rocket can hold the device, the warhead can have any shape desired. And disks are just ever so useful in so many ways...

4) A Sharlin can take 60 damage, plus an additional 12-18 for blowing up instantly. Say that three nukes total ("In range of nuke 2, last one.") equals 75 points, 25 points per nuke.

They only hit it with 2. Remember they said that it was out of range of the 2nd weapon? So, minimum of 30 damage per. But the ship exploded, iirc, so, 36 minimim with a Damage Table roll of 6.

5) It doesn't look like a whole lot of debris hits with the last nuke.

Probably vaporised by the first one.

There is one notable issue in all of this: the asteroids and, with the last blast, the Sharlin all appear to be pushed by the shockwave. I thought that sort of shockwave needed a medium through which to move. I'm not a scientist, though.

A nuclear blast would create its own medium what with all the instantly released radioactive particles. Asa has been mentioned already, it would dissipate quickly, but before it did...

I think hiffano got it right. This is a plot device with a couple of WTF issues to it. Translating it into the game would cause more problems than it is worth. What about smaller or larger warheads? What about putting them in an asteroid field, empty space, nebula, gas giant, or orbital bomb?

While I don't agree with you or Hiff on the first point, I do agree with the second. WMDs are game-stoppers.

 

[emperorpenguin]

2) The Lexington went and hid behind an asteroid to avoid getting damaged. How convenient that that particular asteroid was not pushed about.


4) A Sharlin can take 60 damage, plus an additional 12-18 for blowing up instantly. Say that three nukes total ("In range of nuke 2, last one.") equals 75 points, 25 points per nuke.
.

There is one notable issue in all of this: the asteroids and, with the last blast, the Sharlin all appear to be pushed by the shockwave. I thought that sort of shockwave needed a medium through which to move. I'm not a scientist, though.

The asteroids shouldn't have been pushed around since there would be no shockwave in the vaccuum of space

Only two nukes hit the Black Star