Why Don't They Use Real Guns?!?!

[Kurgan]

I think it's safe to say that building the Death Star is an impossibility. Even forgetting the quasi-magical shields, hyperdrive, etc. and related technologies, there's the issue of waste heat (a single shot would anhilate the entire structure), and power generation (it would need more power than has ever been produced in the history of mankind, etc.)... how do you generate that much power? Star Wars has the completely made up idea of "hypermatter" to account for it.

 

Popular figures are quoted all over the place, that there are enough nukes in Russia, the USA or the entire world to "destroy the world" X times over... take your pick anywhere from 4 to "thousands of times" over. There is no accurate figure.

 

I suppose you could do your calculation based on if you were to somehow plan out the extermination and place every human exposed on a flat surface and drop each bomb uniformily to do the most damage, etc. You could wipe out the human race many times over (certainly not thousands). It would be disasterous, but that's a far cry from what the Death Star does, which is literally reduce an earth sized planet (planetary shields or not) to a debris field. That's major power! You couldn't do it in a million years with lasers. You'd need to impart a lot more energy to it.

 

As for nukes destroying the world, the entire nuclear arsenal of the world could certainly wipe out mankind (in a real nuclear war it's doubtful you'd even get most of the weapons actually used, because most of them don't have the range to hit targets farther away and we'd be dead before we could have pressed all the buttons), their entire megatonnage is still less than the power imparted by the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, for example. So the earth would survive it, even if we wouldn't.

 

There probably isn't enough spare metal on earth to build the Death Star, and even if there was, there's the issue of structural integrity. The thing would be so massive it would collapse on itself unless you had some amazing engineering thousands of years ahead of what we've got today, or super super strong materials. How long would it take to build? Centuries? And the thing has to be space worthy! One might as well ask cavemen to build a Trident Submarine!

 

So I don't think there's any danger of us building a Death Star. Now if you want a "doomesday machine" yes such a thing was theorized and perhaps even started (then abandoned) during the Cold War era. Dr. Strangelove wasn't completely making that part up. But Death Stars, Sun Crushers, Galaxy Guns, and World Devestators are pure fiction and always will be, unless we can destroy the laws of physics, advance thousands of years in the ways of space technology and harness the resources of the galaxy for such a single-minded destructive purpose.

 

Finally, Star Wars lasers, despite the name are NOT lasers. They have nothing in common at all with real life lasers. Not really. Star Wars technology is just as fantastical as most of that in Sci Fi. It won't happen in a million years, even if we have technology today that somehow "inspired" it in some vague way. The same could be said of Star Trek. Just because we have cell phones doesn't mean we'll have the Enterprise in 10, 20, 50, or 100 years. Not unless the laws of physics change!

 

Now you say they would build it "if they could" well that's pretty wild. As it is now it would be a stupid thing to do. Why destroy the entire world forever when you yourself live on it? The theory behind a limited nuclear engagement is that the other country would be destroyed so you could bounce back in a few decades or come out of your shelter after 50-100 years worst case scenario. With a Death Star, there's no planet left. The Death Star in Star Wars made a bit more sense because if you destroy one planet, you can always find another one. Just hop into your hyperdrive ship, and within a few days you'll find another earth-like planet that's already settled and has rooms for rent. Plus, the Death Star is it's own little artificial world that you could live on, if all else failed (until you ran out of supplies, but I imagine they could be self sufficient).

[Great Scott!]

Thank you for that post Kurgan. If I wasn't so lazy I probably would've posted something really similar to that.

[Kurgan]

Thanks. A lot of people are under the impression that much of the stuff they see in sci fi is realistic, but unfortunately (or fortunately in this case!) it's really not.

 

Heck much of the stuff you see in action movies or cop shows isn't very realistic either (or even sit coms). Visual fiction twists reality into entertaining conventions or for the sake of brevity, or for no reason at all (imagination or the lack thereof), it's just the way it is. It's easy to forget that if we don't check out the real world now and then to compare.

[Great Scott!]

Yeah, it's really strange though. Rather than think of stuff like Star Wars movies and such as movies, I actually think of them realistically. I don't think about actors, quality of the movies, etc., I just think of it as something that really happens, yet I see stuff like this exactly your way when most would think I'm the kind of person who tries to make all this stuff a reality.

[El Sitherino]

The way you make it sound, it sounds like you think the USA wants to destroy the world. Now BEFORE MAKING ANY STUPID JOKES OR TRYING TO MAKE AMERICA LOOK BAD, that's obviously not true, and we're smart enough to not make a laser that powerful just for kicks or due to war, considering it could easily destroy the world. I mean, if we're really desperate and have to resort to something really big, we go to nuclear missiles, but I don't think it's gonna get any more serious than that.

... Uh... I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I was giving the US as a mere example of the idiocy we have when it comes to nuclear weapons and that it's not far fetched to believe countries would make super lasers.

 

I think it's safe to say that building the Death Star is an impossibility.

Well no duh.

 

Popular figures are quoted all over the place, that there are enough nukes in Russia, the USA or the entire world to "destroy the world" X times over... take your pick anywhere from 4 to "thousands of times" over. There is no accurate figure.

... Uh... there's no possibly way we could ever destroy earth thousands of times over. And the explosive power the US has alone is enough to destroy the planet 7 times over. Not 100% accurate, but as accurate as weapons experts can determine without actually unleashing the entire stockpile.

 

I suppose you could do your calculation based on if you were to somehow plan out the extermination and place every human exposed on a flat surface and drop each bomb uniformily to do the most damage, etc.

You don't have to put everyone on a flat plane, unleash the stockpiles and if people are "lucky" enough to survive the fallout, they'll die in nuclear winter.

 

You could wipe out the human race many times over (certainly not thousands). It would be disasterous, but that's a far cry from what the Death Star does, which is literally reduce an earth sized planet (planetary shields or not) to a debris field. That's major power! You couldn't do it in a million years with lasers. You'd need to impart a lot more energy to it.

Uh... when did I say anything about doing any of that? I just brought up the concept of super lasers since that's what the Death Star is listed as using.

 

As for nukes destroying the world, the entire nuclear arsenal of the world could certainly wipe out mankind (in a real nuclear war it's doubtful you'd even get most of the weapons actually used, because most of them don't have the range to hit targets farther away and we'd be dead before we could have pressed all the buttons), their entire megatonnage is still less than the power imparted by the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, for example. So the earth would survive it, even if we wouldn't.

Once again you doubt the devastation brought on by nuclear weapons beyond explosion. Unleash that many arms and it'll destroy the entire living Earth and the cycle would have to begin anew, or the planet could possibly be left dead. But as you said chances of unleashing every single weapon is unlikely. That's why this is all theory.

 

The thing would be so massive it would collapse on itself unless you had some amazing engineering thousands of years ahead of what we've got today, or super super strong materials.

Build it in space and none of that would be of concern.

 

How long would it take to build? Centuries? And the thing has to be space worthy!

Would take far too long for it to ever be of use.

 

So I don't think there's any danger of us building a Death Star.

Uh... no one said there was.

 

unless we can destroy the laws of physics

Or find new ones that allow such a possibility.

Blackholes existence alone breaks our laws of physics, we have no clue how they work, only infantile theories that are very likely, not the key.

 

Finally, Star Wars lasers, despite the name are NOT lasers.

No one said they are.

 

They have nothing in common at all with real life lasers.

Well, they are capable of being used for high levels of destruction, that is something they have in common.

 

Not really. Star Wars technology is just as fantastical as most of that in Sci Fi. It won't happen in a million years, even if we have technology today that somehow "inspired" it in some vague way. The same could be said of Star Trek. Just because we have cell phones doesn't mean we'll have the Enterprise in 10, 20, 50, or 100 years. Not unless the laws of physics change!

I'm not even really sure how the hell you got on this tangent, but, yeah.

 

Now you say they would build it "if they could" well that's pretty wild. As it is now it would be a stupid thing to do. Why destroy the entire world forever when you yourself live on it?

Pride drives man to do silly things. History shows us this, many men have doomed themselves for their foolish pride.

[Kurgan]

Yeah. Another highly unrealistic thing in Star Wars (among many) is Coruscant. The entire concept is ludicrous. Even in such a highly advanced culture, it would just seem a massive waste of resources!

 

Then you have (from the official literature) the idea that 1.2 million soldiers qualifies as a "galactic army" in a galactic civil war against "quadrillions" of droids.

[El Sitherino]

Yeah. Another highly unrealistic thing in Star Wars (among many) is Coruscant. The entire concept is ludicrous. Even in such a highly advanced culture, it would just seem a massive waste of resources!

How so? With planes, jets, boats, and the internet, the Earth is already close to being a planet wide city.

[Kurgan]

... Uh... I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I was giving the US as a mere example of the idiocy we have when it comes to nuclear weapons and that it's not far fetched to believe countries would make super lasers.

 

Apart from it being physically impossible... so you're just saying if it were somehow possible, and feasible, they'd be crazy enough to do it. Fair enough.

 

... Uh... there's no possibly way we could ever destroy earth thousands of times over. And the explosive power the US has alone is enough to destroy the planet 7 times over. Not 100% accurate, but as accurate as weapons experts can determine without actually unleashing the entire stockpile.

 

Explain what you mean by "destroying the planet." That's the key here. Detonating the entire arsenal would not be enough to do to Earth what the Death Star did to Alderaan, even if you could somehow detonate them all at once. In fact, the planet would probably bounce back, just as it did after the impact that killed the Dinosaurs, which was far greater than our entire nuclear arsenal. If you weren't saying that before, then just ignore what I'm saying now.

 

You don't have to put everyone on a flat plane, unleash the stockpiles and if people are "lucky" enough to survive the fallout, they'll die in nuclear winter.

 

Ah but that's a very different thing. So you're counting deaths from long term after effects of the detonations, not the bombs themselves or even the fallout. That's akin to avoiding a war because it could lead to starvation. Practical yes, but a stretch of the original question which was of destroying the world. Since we were comparing it to the DS it's a valid question. The Death Star doesn't cause nuclear winter and people to starve as food supplies slowly dwindle.

 

Uh... when did I say anything about doing any of that? I just brought up the concept of super lasers since that's what the Death Star is listed as using.

 

Super lasers, you mean like on the Death Star? They're a sci fi concept that is impossible. Even if we could do it, we would be unable to generate the kind of power required to put something like that out. We'd need hypermatter, which doesn't exist.

 

Once again you doubt the devastation brought on by nuclear weapons beyond explosion. Unleash that many arms and it'll destroy the entire living Earth and the cycle would have to begin anew, or the planet could possibly be left dead. But as you said chances of unleashing every single weapon is unlikely. That's why this is all theory.

 

I'd point you to the mass extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs. I have no doubt our chances of survival would be pretty much wiped out, but sterilizing the planet forever? Doubtful.

 

Build it in space and none of that would be of concern.

 

We still don't have the materials science, the resources, or the technology to do such a thing (all the techonology in it is based on non-existant technology, except maybe the lightbulbs in the display consoles).

 

Would take far too long for it to ever be of use.

 

Uh... no one said there was.

 

You were speaking merely in terms of the hypothetical then? Because implying that we would one day build super lasers implies that it's possible, which it isn't... If we can build it, then that implies Star Wars "lasers" are based on real science, which they aren't.

 

Or find new ones that allow such a possibility.

Blackholes existence alone breaks our laws of physics, we have no clue how they work, only infantile theories that are very likely, not the key.

 

We might also find ways to turn into time traveling gekos. But the mere possibility doesn't mean we should assume its eventuality. We might all turn into a giant Jerry Seinfeld made of cheese.

 

Well, they are capable of being used for high levels of destruction, that is something they have in common.

 

As long as you admit it!

 

I'm not even really sure how the hell you got on this tangent, but, yeah.

 

Because somehow I knew, just knew you'd jump up here and want to debate me? Nah. I just thought I'd contribute to a forum thread like I always do. No rule against that.

 

So in conclusion:

 

Death Star : based on made up science. Would never happen in a million years. Super lasers also based on madeup science. Can't be compared to modern nuclear weapons in any way shape or form except philosophically ('weapons of mass destruction are bad 'cause they threaten our lives'). G'night.

[Kurgan]

How so? With planes, jets, boats, and the internet, the Earth is already close to being a planet wide city.

 

Again, only in philosophical terms (not to be confused with the real thing). Coruscant is not comparable to the earth in any way shape or form. A planetwide city is impossible for many more reasons than I could possibly get into. There was a nice website explaining it all though in a hilarious way, if I can find it again.

 

Edit:

Ah, here it is...

 

See here for table of contents!

[El Sitherino]

Apart from it being physically impossible... so you're just saying if it were somehow possible, and feasible, they'd be crazy enough to do it. Fair enough.

Considering we already have lasers and have made attempts at super lasers but failed only because we don't have large enough power supplies to fuel the super lasers. I fail to see how it's physically impossible.

 

 

Explain what you mean by "destroying the planet."

Removing life from it. None of that reducing the planet itself to rubble. I figured you'd know me better than that.

 

 

Ah but that's a very different thing.

No it's not, because you seem to have misunderstood what I meant.

 

Practical yes, but a stretch of the original question which was of destroying the world. Since we were comparing it to the DS it's a valid question. The Death Star doesn't cause nuclear winter and people to starve as food supplies slowly dwindle.

No one was comparing anything to the Death Star, it's subject just merely spawn my noting that when we find large enough power sources, we'll have super lasers.

 

 

Super lasers, you mean like on the Death Star?

I've already said, no. Real lasers, just more suped up than the ones we currently have.

 

I'd point you to the mass extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs. I have no doubt our chances of survival would be pretty much wiped out, but sterilizing the planet forever? Doubtful.

Take it up with the Theoretical Physicists and weapons experts that say there is a likely chance we could sterilize the planet forever. Nuclear annihilation on the scale we're discussing is highly unimaginable.

 

 

We still don't have the materials science, the resources, or the technology to do such a thing

That wasn't my point, my point was digging a hole in your questionable structure arguement. I already told you it'd be impossible to make a station the size of the Death Star.

 

You were speaking merely in terms of the hypothetical then?

No, I never said anything about building a Death Star or even the possibility.

 

Because implying that we would one day build super lasers implies that it's possible, which it isn't...

But we have built super lasers, not kinds like in Star Wars, the problem is we don't have the power supplies to make them useable at this point in time. Which was what I was talking about, that the future may show us ways to use nuclear power for power supplies to power these lasers.

 

If we can build it, then that implies Star Wars "lasers" are based on real science, which they aren't.

No one was talking about Star Wars lasers, just you.

 

 

We might also find ways to turn into time traveling gekos. But the mere possibility doesn't mean we should assume its eventuality.

When did I say we should?

 

Because somehow I knew, just knew you'd jump up here and want to debate me? Nah. I just thought I'd contribute to a forum thread like I always do. No rule against that.

Not what I mean, I meant that none of what you said really had anything to do with what I was talking about. But I can't blame you as it seems you misunderstood my meanings.

 

So in conclusion:

 

Death Star : based on made up science. Would never happen in a million years.

Agreed.

 

Super lasers also based on madeup science.

Wrong, they do exist, just not like we see in Star Wars. And no one said they were.

 

Can't be compared to modern nuclear weapons in any way shape or form except philosophically

And I wasn't. You only thought I was.

[Kurgan]

Ok, so you admit the stuff in Star Wars is impossible and unrealistic. That's fine, that was really all I was getting at.

 

Since it sounded like you were saying SW tech would be oneday achievable (or is in the process of being achieved) by us, I had to disagree!

 

Just because something in our world today has a similar NAME to something in Star Wars, doesn't mean it's anywhere near comparable.

[El Sitherino]

Again, only in philosophical terms (not to be confused with the real thing). Coruscant is not comparable to the earth in any way shape or form. A planetwide city is impossible for many more reasons than I could possibly get into. There was a nice website explaining it all though in a hilarious way, if I can find it again.

 

Edit:

Ah, here it is...

 

See here for table of contents!

True the population thing gets in the way, but a Coruscant like planet could exist with a smaller population. Hell part of the city could contain a large country sized aggricultural field, call it the food district.

 

Basically Earth already is like Coruscant, we're basically a giant city, just having street wars and divided a bit and have to bridge around.

[Kurgan]

Again you're arguing philosophy, not fact!

 

Most of the earth's surface is not inhabited, it's ocean. We're nothing like Coruscant. And if you shrink the planet down too much you'll have problems with it no longer being earth-like, etc. It's really a lost cause justifying it. They just have god-like tech that somehow makes it possible, in the fictional world of star wars.

[El Sitherino]

Just because something in our world today has a similar NAME to something in Star Wars, doesn't mean it's anywhere near comparable.

I never said anything like that. I was just going on Kain's post and stating that something similiar in idea will be possible when a usable power source for Super Lasers is made. Not in the same way as Star Wars mind you.

[El Sitherino]

Most of the earth's surface is not inhabited, it's ocean.

And how does that prevent from us making this a single planetary city? A city doesn't have to cover up every single bit of the area it's charted in. Look at Texas, most cities here have large uninhabited areas, but they're still part of the city. I imagine if we just blew up one to the size of a planet, it'd still stay a city but it'd be planet size.

 

We're nothing like Coruscant.

You said the concept of Coruscant is impossible. But the concept of Coruscant is that it's essentially one giant city. With all the tech available to us, we've rendered Earth into being a single city. We have access to every single section of the planet. Think of the jetliner as the planetary L train to Africa as if it were uptown/downtown/etc.

[SeleneRayne]

Just remember Kurgan - people thought flight, space travel, and thinking machines were impossible as well.

[Kain]

Um, that post was by me. But someone doesn't know how to log out

[Great Scott!]

My god, this is what happens when I'm gone? Jeez...

[Kurgan]

Okay, I'll say it one last time... Coruscant is not earth. When you say "City Planet" and reference Coruscant, you've created a very specific picture. The same as if you mention the Death Star and "destroy a planet." The real world examples of nuclear winter, vs. a space based sci fi weapon that reduces planets to asteroids in seconds; and "a bunch of really big cities, scattered across the land masses of a planet" vs. Coruscant, one large city, covering the entire planet (minus some small seas near the poles or something like that, IIRC, mentioned in the EU).

 

The only info I could find on superlasers was related here. So a failed concept of a "thermonuclear blast" simulated by a really big laser array for the purposes of protecting a nuclear arsenal. While interesting, that's still a far cry from the Death Star. One might as well compare lightsabers and laser scalpels. Just because one exists, doesn't mean the other is even remotely in the realm of possibility, and not merely due to lack of funds!

 

Here's also a page with lots of info and stats on nuclear weapons and yields, nuclear winter, etc.

 

While the page I posted above (Irregular Webcomic) has only one strip, the table of contents is quite a fun read. He goes through strip after strip pointing out a lot of the insane problems in the Star Wars movies relating to the Death Star and Coruscant in particular. Obviously one can enjoy these movies as entertainment without assuming anything in them is scientifically plausible. It's suspension of disbelief.

 

Btw, I hear they built robots that can carry weapons in Iraq. Does this mean Battledroid Armies like those seen in Star Wars are on the horizon? No! Though less unrealistic than some of the ideas we've been discussing, the issue of true AI is probably the biggest technical hurdle, plus the fact that it'd be cheaper to just use human soldiers, but anyway...

 

I've got some Jedi business to attend to... go back to your drinks!

[Jan Gaarni]

I think I've figured out your discussion tactics, Kurgan.

 

You talk people into submission.

 

EDIT: Crap! Blast me and my crave for the need to read longwinded posts, now I have no idea where the newest posts are cause I spent too much time here.

Oh, but I can't blame myself, cause I'm perfect, so ... thanks alot, Kurgan!!

[El Sitherino]

Okay, I'll say it one last time... Coruscant is not earth. When you say "City Planet" and reference Coruscant, you've created a very specific picture. The same as if you mention the Death Star and "destroy a planet." The real world examples of nuclear winter, vs. a space based sci fi weapon that reduces planets to asteroids in seconds; and "a bunch of really big cities, scattered across the land masses of a planet" vs. Coruscant, one large city, covering the entire planet (minus some small seas near the poles or something like that, IIRC, mentioned in the EU).

 

And what I'm saying is that the concept of a planet wide city is not impossible because our current tech has already rendered earth into pretty much being a planet wide city.

 

The only info I could find on superlasers was related here. So a failed concept of a "thermonuclear blast" simulated by a really big laser array for the purposes of protecting a nuclear arsenal. While interesting, that's still a far cry from the Death Star.

Read my post. I never said anything about being able to do what the Death Star does. If you'd bother to read anything I say you'd realize I said I wasn't saying any of that.

 

While the page I posted above (Irregular Webcomic) has only one strip, the table of contents is quite a fun read. He goes through strip after strip pointing out a lot of the insane problems in the Star Wars movies relating to the Death Star and Coruscant in particular. Obviously one can enjoy these movies as entertainment without assuming anything in them is scientifically plausible. It's suspension of disbelief.

Don't care because none of that was even of the topic I was discussing.

And where in any of my posts did I say a planet exactly like Coruscant is possible? Or that a Death Star was possible? I never said anything like that. I never even talked about the Death Star until you came in. And all I was saying about Coruscant in relation to earth was that we've already pretty much turned Earth into a single city with the technology we have. We have destroyed virtually all limitations in global communication. We can now talk to someone in Japan as though they were just down the street. I can get on a plane and go to Europe as though I were going downtown in a cab.

The concept of Coruscant is one global city, what I'm saying is we've all but achieved it. Of course we'll never make the entire planet (covering ocean and all land mass) a city, but that's not the concept. The concept was a global city, one city that extends all around the planet. Extends != 100% cover.

 

And of course I'm argueing philosophically, that's what a concept is, philosophy.

Btw, I hear they built robots that can carry weapons in Iraq. Does this mean Battledroid Armies like those seen in Star Wars are on the horizon? No! Though less unrealistic than some of the ideas we've been discussing, the issue of true AI is probably the biggest technical hurdle, plus the fact that it'd be cheaper to just use human soldiers, but anyway...

Once again, nothing to do with what I was saying. Instead of trying to create arguements, maybe you should try discussing the one at hand.

[Kain]

:¬:From why they don't use handguns to why a Death Star is seemingly impossible. How did one of the worst threads ever created get turned into a philisophical debate over the reality of a planet-wide city? I don't know, but it's actually worth reading all of a sudden:p

[Nedak]

Why don't they use real guns instead of those blaster rifles?A jedi could not block Buckshot.So why shoot red lines that move realy slow when you can shoot 7.62 at them so fast they would never be able to even akknowledge that it is about to go through them.I need to go in the starwars universe and bring my .22,I would be a jedi killer.Lasers they could block but a bullet why that fricken go right through there saber even if they blocked it.

 

To answer your question; first of all guns are less breakable compared to blasters. Also a Jedi would still block a buckshot (force shield). And the "Red Lines" actualy do go faster then a bullet (becuase it is light and not an object). Also the bullets would be desingrated by the saber because sabers are made pretty much like lasers (except the lasers are blades instead of an actual quick beam of light and they are made with complex crystals) and a laser would oviously tear apart a bullet.

-Hope that answers your question.

[RobQel-Droma]

Well, I am probably not posting anything new, I kind of found this late, but here is my two credits.

 

Blaster bolts are WAY faster that bullets. The actual damaging part of a blaster is the invisible beam it emits that will actually hit the target a split-second before the "bolt" hits it. So, it is a difference between a bullet, or a laser traveling at the speed of light.

 

Secondly, a lightsaber would melt the bullet right there, and a Jedi would be able to react to it. A bullet is made out of metal, and it would be hitting a solid beam of energy, not something it could pass through just because it is going fast enough.

 

Finally, it was the obvious choice for Star Wars; it would have looked stupid if it was a bunch of stormtroopers walking around with tommy guns.