Halo - Covenant Spaceship Firepower Calcs

[Mr. Oragahn]

Thanks. It doesn't help High much though. What it says that the whole station, built in a hardened cave, could withstand a nuclear strike.
Basically, the whole base, not just the room, contrary to high's claim, could withstand a strike.

High, I was certainly not running into semantics.

You claimed that the room alone could withstand a nuke. I asked what you understood by the room, exactly.

A room is, in general, at least three straight walls, generally four, a floor and a ceiling. This is a volume.

A fucking volume can't withstand a nuke. It's like saying the atmosphere can withstand a nuke. This is retarded.

Therefore, it can only refer to the structure of the room, the walls, floor and ceiling. Thusly, I ask you how think you think the walls are, and where the walls of the room actually start and end.

Or are you saying that if a 80 MT nuke detonated inside this room, the room would still be intact?

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

Thanks. It doesn't help High much though. What it says that the whole station, built in a hardened cave, could withstand a nuclear strike.
Basically, the whole base, not just the room, contrary to high's claim, could withstand a strike.

Your use of the word 'contrary' there is logically flawed, because if the whole base can take a nuke strike of unknown yield, that doesn't mean that a room cannot take a nuke as well.

High, I was certainly not running into semantics.

You claimed that the room alone could withstand a nuke. I asked what you understood by the room, exactly.

A room is, in general, at least three straight walls, generally four, a floor and a ceiling. This is a volume.

A fucking volume can't withstand a nuke. It's like saying the atmosphere can withstand a nuke. This is retarded.

Therefore, it can only refer to the structure of the room, the walls, floor and ceiling. Thusly, I ask you how think you think the walls are, and where the walls of the room actually start and end.

I've already explained my argument in the post I linked to.
All you've managed to do ignore it, and repeat your retarded interpretation just below.

Or are you saying that if a 80 MT nuke detonated inside this room, the room would still be intact?

...

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

No, you misunderstand my argument. It has nothing to do with the nuke detonating inside the room. However, it has everything to do with the nuke detonating directly outside the room, as the author says.

I thought it was reasonable to assume that you were capable of basic reading skills. It seems that this assumption was rather optimistic.

[wellis]

Oragahn, I remember reading that part in The Fall of Reach, and it is saying that if the outside portion of the room, essentially the outside part of the walls, ceiling, and floor, was directly hit by an 80 megaton nuke the room would survive the blast.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Sorry to necro this. After reading Hig's post again, his claims seems to be that if you take two rooms, separated by a wall, and detonated a 80 MT nuke in one room, the lady in the other room would be safe, because the room can withstand a standard nuke detonation.

I also reconsidered the excerpt provided by SE:

"They immediately acknowledged. The Spartans knew that ravine like the back of their heads. It wasn't marked on any map, but it was where they trained for months with Dr. Hasley. Beneath the mountains were caverns that the Office of Naval Intelligence had converted into a top secret facility. It was fortified and hardened against radiation, and could possibly withstand anything up to and including a direct nuclear strike." - pages 23 & 24, First Strike

This basically means that the complex is built under the mountains, that they're reinforced, and that station could withstand a direct assault, which logically would be understood as a bombardment, not infiltration and nuke-planting from within.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

After reading Hig's post again, his claims seems to be that if you take two rooms, separated by a wall, and detonated a 80 MT nuke in one room, the lady in the other room would be safe, because the room can withstand a standard nuke detonation.

"The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke."

'The room where she now stood'. This obviously refers to, well, the room in which she is standing, not the whole facility.

Not that an 80 megaton EPW is enough to destroy something buried under two kilometres of granite, of course. Meaning that the statement becomes even more nonsensical when interpreted as you would.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

"The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke."

'The room where she now stood'. This obviously refers to, well, the room in which she is standing, not the whole facility.

So you mean that if a 80 MT nuke detonated inside that room, then at least its walls, floor and ceiling would withstand it?

Or is it that, if the nuke was detonated inside an adjacent room, the one where the woman stood would not be damaged/destroyed? (Same question from the post above, but which you ignored.)

Not that an 80 megaton EPW is enough to destroy something buried under two kilometres of granite, of course. Meaning that the statement becomes even more nonsensical when interpreted as you would.

Sure, 2km of granite is clearly going to stop a 80 MT nuke. On the same hand, perhaps she was just stating the obvious.
What was the context of her thoughts? Did someone speak about an enemy firing from orbit?

[Isil`Zha]

Sorry, I'm actually with the thought of "the facility could survive a strike form outside."

Things typically don't survive to well with internal explosions.

[SpartanElite]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

Not that an 80 megaton EPW is enough to destroy something buried under two kilometres of granite, of course.

If it was a bunker buster it might be able to. IIRC, kiloton ranged bunker busters are expected to pierce like 100 meters of fortifications or something to that extent.

While I side with hig's interpretation of the Reach quote (though I forget its context), the context of the other quote in FS about CASTLE REACH (the facility in question) makes it seem more like Hasley was referring to the entire facility. You wouldn't say "could possibly withstand anything up to and including a nuke" if you have offices that can survive 80-megaton nukes.

Mr. Oragahn, If I said "the Abrams he piloted could survive an RPG-7," you would take that as a statement that as an Abrams armor could survive an RPG-7 or that an Abram's armor and insides could survive an RPG-7?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by SpartanElite

If it was a bunker buster it might be able to. IIRC, kiloton ranged bunker busters are expected to pierce like 100 meters of fortifications or something to that extent.

While I side with hig's interpretation of the Reach quote (though I forget its context), the context of the other quote in FS about CASTLE REACH (the facility in question) makes it seem more like Hasley was referring to the entire facility. You wouldn't say "could possibly withstand anything up to and including a nuke" if you have offices that can survive 80-megaton nukes.

Huh, so there are actually two quotes from different sources. but the one with the woman, it mentions the room that belongs to that Castle Reach facility, surely? I mean, Castle Reach... Fall of Reach.

I'll simply point out that a simulation of the detonation of 10 megatons buried nuke, inside a Golevka asteroid model (500 x 600 x 700 meters) has shown that a sphere roughly 200~250 meters wide was vaporized, and the rest of the asteroid was pulverized.
Assuming we're dealing with an initial high penetration delivery system (low-hypervelocity bunker buster with a laser breaking air friction a little), and then a shaped nuke with, perhaps, the emphasis put on the production of seismic forces, then it's possible that a 80 megatons buried nuke could really prove deadly to underground installations.
Now, who ever said that the base was under 2 kilometers of granite?
One of the two sources speaks of a ravine, and a mountain is a cone: you'd certainly not try to destroy the underground installation by hitting the summit, but actually hitting the sides at hill level, and even try to aim for obvious entrances, so the shockwave goes really deep inside the complex.

Mr. Oragahn, If I said "the Abrams he piloted could survive an RPG-7," you would take that as a statement that as an Abrams armor could survive an RPG-7 or that an Abram's armor and insides could survive an RPG-7?

Depends of the context, but in general, considering that there are people inside the tank, I wouldn't mention the prowess unless we could consider that people would be safe inside the tank, when said tank is hit. Then I'm not venturing on the terrain of armour piercing and double charged ammo.

But then, there's also the small possibility that people suffering from shock or something, while most of the tank's internals systems would not get damaged as much as our fragile meatbags would, and then the question would "just" be about finding a new crew for that tank.

It all depends how far you deem the tank still operational. If a shield or a helmet is dented, but not broken, yet the wielder/wearer is knocked out, obviously the gear in question withstood the impact, but no the person.

Now, the lady would clearly not think positively about the protection provided when sitting in that room if it didn't guarantee very high chances of survival.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

Huh, so there are actually two quotes from different sources. but the one with the woman, it mentions the room that belongs to that Castle Reach facility, surely? I mean, Castle Reach... Fall of Reach.

Yes. And the facility is called CASTLE. And it is on Reach. It isn't called 'castle Reach' or whatever you want to call it.

I'll simply point out that a simulation of the detonation of 10 megatons buried nuke, inside a Golevka asteroid model (500 x 600 x 700 meters) has shown that a sphere roughly 200~250 meters wide was vaporized, and the rest of the asteroid was pulverized.

And I'll simply point out that trying to destroy a buried bunker is obivously different to a centrally buried nuke blowing up an asteroid.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapon...g-weapons.html
"For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet."
Since yield scales by the third power of penetration depth (or more, since it scales by the dourth power of crater depth above 1 megaton), 80 megatons isn't enough. Considering everything else that's canonically in between, and that granite is harder than normal soil.

Assuming we're dealing with an initial high penetration delivery system (low-hypervelocity bunker buster with a laser breaking air friction a little), and then a shaped nuke with, perhaps, the emphasis put on the production of seismic forces, then it's possible that a 80 megatons buried nuke could really prove deadly to underground installations.

So you have evidence that the UNSC regularly faces enemies with hypervelocity shaped nuclear weapons with a laser on the front and magic siesmic tweaking, right?
Or is that all just bullshit and we could also assume they have magic nukes which modify the phase variance so that the blast teleports itself next to the bunker?

Now, who ever said that the base was under 2 kilometers of granite?
One of the two sources speaks of a ravine, and a mountain is a cone: you'd certainly not try to destroy the underground installation by hitting the summit, but actually hitting the sides at hill level, and even try to aim for obvious entrances, so the shockwave goes really deep inside the complex.

"Although he had barely felt the descent, Wagner knew he had dropped three kilometers into the planet, through solid layers of granite, reinforced concrete, plates of Titanium-A, and EMP-hardened metal. None of this made him feel any safer, though; ONI's research facility on Reach had the same setup"
TFoR also says that the base is two kilometres below the mountains. No, it does not say 'two kilometres below the surface of the mountain' like you might try to claim.
Anyway, there's no point in building your facility under a mountain for defence if it counts for nothing because you can just hit it from the side, unless you're severely retarded.

Originally Posted by SpartanElite

the context of the other quote in FS about CASTLE REACH (the facility in question) makes it seem more like Hasley was referring to the entire facility. You wouldn't say "could possibly withstand anything up to and including a nuke" if you have offices that can survive 80-megaton nukes.

The quote mentions 'nuclear strike'. Therefore, it would depend on the typical yield of a nuclear strike, relative to the other quote's 80 megatons.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

Yes. And the facility is called CASTLE. And it is on Reach. It isn't called 'castle Reach' or whatever you want to call it.

So we're speaking of the same installation then.

And I'll simply point out that trying to destroy a buried bunker is obivously different to a centrally buried nuke blowing up an asteroid.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapon...g-weapons.html
"For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet."
Since yield scales by the third power of penetration depth (or more, since it scales by the dourth power of crater depth above 1 megaton), 80 megatons isn't enough. Considering everything else that's canonically in between, and that granite is harder than normal soil.

So then the UNSC and its super alloys and insane coilgun tech, but can't even get a bunker buster deeper than our current abilities?
Got that.
I used the buried nuke case because we happened to be talking about advanced nuclear bunker buster, and although the nuke of our Reach-relevant case not be buried as deep, would still do a better job than merely detonated on the surface.

And what is that equation you're talking about? Quantity and density of the mass surrounding the nuclear device matters a lot in cratering.

So you have evidence that the UNSC regularly faces enemies with hypervelocity shaped nuclear weapons with a laser on the front and magic siesmic tweaking, right?

Considering the claims about MACs and TA, does it seem that impossible?
I happened to read an old thread, perhaps even that one, wherein someone pointed out, when talking about the pirate base and Cortana's demonstration, that insurgents had no impressive weapons, and that it was rather spectacular for the pirates to even have Archer missiles.

The point being that whoever the lady had in mind when she spoke of the nuke, she clearly thought of someone, or some faction, that could threaten the UNSC.

Or is that all just bullshit and we could also assume they have magic nukes which modify the phase variance so that the blast teleports itself next to the bunker?

Why go there?

"Although he had barely felt the descent, Wagner knew he had dropped three kilometers into the planet, through solid layers of granite, reinforced concrete, plates of Titanium-A, and EMP-hardened metal. None of this made him feel any safer, though; ONI's research facility on Reach had the same setup"
TFoR also says that the base is two kilometres below the mountains. No, it does not say 'two kilometres below the surface of the mountain' like you might try to claim.

That's not my claim. First, I wasn't sure of the 2 km proof.
Secondly, since the complex could be wide, then there would likely parts of the complex that would have less mountain right above them, than some other sections. Unless the complex was built like an underground pyramid, more or less mimicing the mountain's shape

Anyway, there's no point in building your facility under a mountain for defence if it counts for nothing because you can just hit it from the side, unless you're severely retarded.

You still need some access points though. But yes, you'd try to cramp the base in the most efficient way. The clarification about the complex's depth helps.

The quote mentions 'nuclear strike'. Therefore, it would depend on the typical yield of a nuclear strike, relative to the other quote's 80 megatons.

OK, so I understand that means the room would withstand an explosion if the nuke detonated inside said room.
You're sure you're not being a wanker, right here? Because, you know, you can complain about me making a reference to a simulation of a buried 10 MT nuclear device used to destroy an asteroid, which isn't perfectly relevant to our little incident, but using a 80 megatons inside an underground room, and pretending that said room would be fine... that's waaaay beyond retarded. I can think of an appropriate picture there, but it got me banned last time I used it. Hint: it featured a back and forth linear movement.

I'm sorry to have to state your opinion, it seems hard to get a direct and simple answer, to simple questions, and I'm not really getting why you obtusely refuse to reply, especially since I've asked this twice now, and you managed to type two posts and still evade those questions.
It's looking like you don't want to state your opinion clearly.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

snip

Apparently when you've lost all pretense to being capable of reading comprehension by somehow conjuring up the crack-fantasy that I mean the nuke detonated inside the room, when basically everyone else (SpartanElite, wellis) understands just fine, you think this actually merits a serious response? What you really ought to do is move away from the computer until those hefty mind-altering substances you're no doubt taking wear off.

More later.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Myself, in 2008

No, you misunderstand my argument. It has nothing to do with the nuke detonating inside the room.

Sure, I could understand that if you were retarded it might take you a week to understand what 'no' means, but almost two years? You can't be serious.

[Wisky-08]

Me like point black range battles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcczaSAH4lU

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

Apparently when you've lost all pretense to being capable of reading comprehension by somehow conjuring up the crack-fantasy that I mean the nuke detonated inside the room, when basically everyone else (SpartanElite, wellis) understands just fine, you think this actually merits a serious response? What you really ought to do is move away from the computer until those hefty mind-altering substances you're no doubt taking wear off.

More later.

EDIT:

Sure, I could understand that if you were retarded it might take you a week to understand what 'no' means, but almost two years? You can't be serious.

Humour me. You've managed to do one single thing over the last one or two pages: avoid providing a clear position about the interpretation of this source.
Don't even try to get SpartanElite and wellis into that.
Wellis had bad memories of the quote, and SE didn't exactly give his opinion, but asked me a simple question, which I addressed honestly, although it's also good to point out that the analogy using a tank for an underground bunker room is not very good, considering that the tank is not an underground structure and therefore not surrounded by copious amounts of matter.

I've covered all cases I could think of : surface impact, bunker buster, nuke inside an adjacent room, and nuke in the room.
The only one I didn't cover is the case of taking the room out of the complex, along arbitrary measures of wall thickness, and then saying oh but if a nuke exploded outside of this room... which is just ironic, considering how you mocked me with your phasing nuke strawman.
Just give me an answer and stop playing games.

But you know what, here's the quote, as provided by l33telboi:

Originally Posted by The Fall of Reach

She should feel safe here. Reach was one of the UNSC’s largest industrial bases, ringed with high-orbit gun batteries, space docks, and a fleet of heavily-armed capital ships. On the planet’s surface were Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools, and between her underground facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete. The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke.

So why did she feel so vulnerable?

Let me see... still the same complex?
2 to 3 kilometers of granite, titanium-A, concrete and whatever else?
Huh. Try 300 meters of hardened steel and concrete.
Eventually, the layout would be similar.

Rather amusing, in light of your claim that we had to understand that the lady's thoughts were about the case where the nuke would be detonated just outside the room!
Aside from the already ludicrous mind bending exercice in abstraction, it would also require ignoring the clear context. You know, the one that lists all the planet's defenses, and the thickness and composition of the complex's armour between the surface and its rooms... in case it were hit hard.

Ah, the memories, they're all resurfacing now. I remember why I grabbed you on that arbitrary wall and ceiling thickness of yours. Before my necro, the thread pretty much ended with you talking nonsense, pages later after l33telboi had already called you on your extravagant claim in post #68.

I'll again point to Clavian's post, which included info about Archer missiles:

Originally Posted by Contact Harvest, p. 131

He knew Walk of Shame was equipped with a single Archer missile – a ship-to ship weapon capable of crippling all but the largest vessels in the human fleet.

Originally Posted by Clavian

Archer missiles are, as per numerous references, high explosive weapons and distinctly sub-kiloton in there yields. Doesn't exactly suggest that they can stand multi-gigaton plasma torpedoes.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

So then the UNSC and its super alloys and insane coilgun tech, but can't even get a bunker buster deeper than our current abilities?
Got that.
I used the buried nuke case because we happened to be talking about advanced nuclear bunker buster, and although the nuke of our Reach-relevant case not be buried as deep, would still do a better job than merely detonated on the surface.

Well, yes, there are limits to how much damage 80 megatons can do. There are also limits to how far something can penetrate. Beyond a certain velocity (i.e. hypervelocity), the only important factor is the area mass density of the projectile versus the density of the target. Making it faster doesn't make it penetrate any more. So unless you have evidence that the UNSC has hyper-dense materials and uses them to weigh their bombs down?

And what is that equation you're talking about? Quantity and density of the mass surrounding the nuclear device matters a lot in cratering.

It isn't an equation, it's scaling. And obviously it takes at least ten times the energy to equally affect a volume ten times greater.
Most nuclear tests are done around soil or lighter rock, so it could, in fact, be conservative.

Considering the claims about MACs and TA, does it seem that impossible?
I happened to read an old thread, perhaps even that one, wherein someone pointed out, when talking about the pirate base and Cortana's demonstration, that insurgents had no impressive weapons, and that it was rather spectacular for the pirates to even have Archer missiles.

The point being that whoever the lady had in mind when she spoke of the nuke, she clearly thought of someone, or some faction, that could threaten the UNSC.

No. Until the Covenant, the only major threat were the organised insurgencies. Which had ships such as destroyers, and were considered a great enough threat that they initiated the Spartan project.

Why go there?

Are you incapable of detecting the most thinly veiled sarcasm?

That's not my claim. First, I wasn't sure of the 2 km proof.
Secondly, since the complex could be wide, then there would likely parts of the complex that would have less mountain right above them, than some other sections. Unless the complex was built like an underground pyramid, more or less mimicing the mountain's shape

Yes, which is why the two kilometres is under the mountain, and it could possibly be more.

You still need some access points though. But yes, you'd try to cramp the base in the most efficient way. The clarification about the complex's depth helps.

Access points are usually known as 'tunnels'.

Humour me. You've managed to do one single thing over the last one or two pages: avoid providing a clear position about the interpretation of this source.
Don't even try to get SpartanElite and wellis into that.
Wellis had bad memories of the quote, and SE didn't exactly give his opinion, but asked me a simple question, which I addressed honestly, although it's also good to point out that the analogy using a tank for an underground bunker room is not very good, considering that the tank is not an underground structure and therefore not surrounded by copious amounts of matter.

No, its obvious that wellis (from his post) and SpartanElite (by the fact that he said "hig's interpretation of the Reach quote" as opposed to "I don't understand what hig is saying because he is trying to evade") actually understand what I'm saying, but you still don't.
No offense, but if your English is this bad, you shouldn't really be posting on an English-based forum so that other people literally have to babysit you when you don't understand.

I've covered all cases I could think of : surface impact, bunker buster, nuke inside an adjacent room, and nuke in the room.
The only one I didn't cover is the case of taking the room out of the complex, along arbitrary measures of wall thickness, and then saying oh but if a nuke exploded outside of this room... which is just ironic, considering how you mocked me with your phasing nuke strawman.
Just give me an answer and stop playing games.

I shouldn't have to explain this, because it takes merely a basic understanding of the quote and about one second of thought.
The room she is standing in is probably surrounded by other rooms (you know, what often happens in a building), and hence the boundary of that room is defined by the walls it has. In any case, there is a clear delineation between the walls of the room that were made and placed there, and anything else, be it the air of the next room, or the rock surrounding the complex.

Let me see... still the same complex?
2 to 3 kilometers of granite, titanium-A, concrete and whatever else?
Huh. Try 300 meters of hardened steel and concrete.
Eventually, the layout would be similar.

Rather amusing, in light of your claim that we had to understand that the lady's thoughts were about the case where the nuke would be detonated just outside the room!
Aside from the already ludicrous mind bending exercice in abstraction, it would also require ignoring the clear context. You know, the one that lists all the planet's defenses, and the thickness and composition of the complex's armour between the surface and its rooms... in case it were hit hard.

Yes, that was in TFoR. Which also says:
"Castle was a massive complex, two thousand meters below the granite protection of the Highland Mountains"
Even if you did believe that omission was disproof of existence, the other quote comes from First Strike which is newer, and hence higher canon.

And no, 'Eventually, the layout would be similar' isn't considered valid a valid argument in proper English - it has to make sense first. Which, of course, renders the other paragraph nonsensical. However, feel free to try again, with proper English this time. Keeping in mind that the word 'same' does not mean the same thing as the word 'similar'.

I'll again point to Clavian's post, which included info about Archer missiles:

Which was, of course, given with no context and makes 0 sense. Even SpartanElite said that "I think it was referring to stealth ships, yachts, Longswords and other small ships, not larger warships like corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers and super carriers", and he's practically the only impartial person in this debate.
Yes, it really makes sense that a missile that ships commonly carry in the hundreds can kill everything else in a single shot, right? And that Covenant ships can take hundreds of these missiles without shields, yet UNSC ships die to one? I am aware that you like to break canon in order to force through your favoured interpretation of whatever quote, but try using logic for once.
Clavian has, of course, not proven that Archer missiles are sub-kiloton, ever.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

Well, yes, there are limits to how much damage 80 megatons can do. There are also limits to how far something can penetrate. Beyond a certain velocity (i.e. hypervelocity), the only important factor is the area mass density of the projectile versus the density of the target. Making it faster doesn't make it penetrate any more. So unless you have evidence that the UNSC has hyper-dense materials and uses them to weigh their bombs down?

Ah, suddenly thrusters and coilguns don't exist, so a nuclear bomb must achieve its impact velocity on the merits of its own weight only?
Good. It's not like our science is already exploring the very near-future applications of hyper-velocity projectiles (stuff studied since the 90s or perhaps even earlier).

It isn't an equation, it's scaling. And obviously it takes at least ten times the energy to equally affect a volume ten times greater.
Most nuclear tests are done around soil or lighter rock, so it could, in fact, be conservative.

Then if it's not an equation, was is the empirical event this scaling was based upon?

Access points are usually known as 'tunnels'.

Yes, and the sky is blue. Are you going to pick every word I say just to make a useless point?
Are you that pathetically craving for credits?

No, its obvious that wellis (from his post) and SpartanElite (by the fact that he said "hig's interpretation of the Reach quote" as opposed to "I don't understand what hig is saying because he is trying to evade") actually understand what I'm saying, but you still don't.

Wellis says, oh, "if the outside portion of the room, essentially the outside part of the walls, ceiling, and floor, was directly hit by an 80 megaton nuke the room would survive the blast." Not exactly what the book said, and that even when going with the lite-quote.
SE understands your point, but doesn't say he agrees. I'm yet to see him take a position.

No offense, but if your English is this bad, you shouldn't really be posting on an English-based forum so that other people literally have to babysit you when you don't understand.

My English is fine, thank you.

The room she is standing in is probably surrounded by other rooms (you know, what often happens in a building), and hence the boundary of that room is defined by the walls it has. In any case, there is a clear delineation between the walls of the room that were made and placed there, and anything else, be it the air of the next room, or the rock surrounding the complex.

So that's it.
A nuke can be detonated against one of these walls, and the wall would stand.

This is priceless. But to understand the acrobatics you're going through, we need to check those quotes, again:

Yes, that was in TFoR. Which also says:
"Castle was a massive complex, two thousand meters below the granite protection of the Highland Mountains"
Even if you did believe that omission was disproof of existence, the other quote comes from First Strike which is newer, and hence higher canon.

Safe that the 80 MT reference nuke was written within the context of a factory-complex with a 300 meters thick lid above, and that the First Strike quote tells that the base could withstand a nuclear strike.
Now, I got access to TFOR, so it's going to be funnier.
Anatomy of a cherry pick:

Originally Posted by The Fall of Reach

CHAPTER THREE
2300 Hours September 23, 2517 (Military Calendar ) / Epsilon Eridani System, Reach Military
Complex, planet Reach

Dr. Halsey stood on a platform in the center of the amphitheater. Concentric rings of slate-gray risers
surrounded her—empty for now. Overhead spotlights focused and reflected off her white lab coat, but
she still was cold.
She should feel safe here. Reach was one of the UNSC’s largest industrial bases, ringed with high-orbit
gun batteries, space docks, and a fleet of heavily-armed capital ships. On the planet’s surface were
Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools, and between her underground
facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete. The room where she
now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke.

Originally Posted by The Fall of Reach

SECTION IV
MJOLNIR
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE

0915 Hours, August 25, 2552 (Military Calendar) /
Epsilon Eridani System, Reach UNSC Military Complex, planet Reach, Omega Wing—Section
Three secure facility

“Good morning, Dr. Halsey,” Déjà said. “You’re fourteen point three minutes late this morning.”
“Blame security, Déjà,” Dr. Halsey replied, gesturing absently at the AI’s holographic projection
floating above her desk. “ONI’s precautions here are becoming increasingly ridiculous.”
Dr. Halsey threw her coat over the back of an antique armchair before settling behind her desk. She
sighed, and for the thousandth time, wished she had a window.
The private office was located deep underground, inside the “Omega Wing” of the super-secure ONI
facility, codenamed simply CASTLE.
Castle was a massive complex, two thousand meters below the granite protection of the Highland
Mountains—bombproof, well defended, and impenetrable.
The security had its drawbacks, she was forced to admit. Every morning she descended into the secret
labyrinth, passed through a dozen security checkpoints, and submitted to a barrage of retina, voice,
fingerprint, and brainwave ID scans.
ONI had buried her here years ago when her funding had been shunted to higher profile projects. All
other personnel had been transferred to other operations, and her access to classified materials had been
severely restricted. Even shadowy ONI was squeamish about her experiments.
That’s all changed—thanks to the Covenant, she thought. The SPARTAN project—unpopular with the
Admiralty, and the scientific community—had proven most effective. Her Spartans had proven
themselves time after time in countless ground engagements.

Originally Posted by First Strike

When the Covenant destroys a planet, they typically move their large warships closer and blanket the world with a series of crisscrossing orbits to ensure that every square millimeter of the surface is covered with plasma bombardments.

Originally Posted by First Strike

Although he had barely felt the descent, Wagner knew he had dropped three kilometers into the planet, through solid layers of granite, reinforced concrete, plates of Titanium-A, and EMP-hardened metal. None of this made him feel any safer, though; ONI's research facility on Reach had the same setup, and it hadn't done those poor bastards any good.

Originally Posted by First Strike, p. 23 &amp

They immediately acknowledged. The Spartans knew that ravine like the back of their heads. It wasn't marked on any map, but it was where they trained for months with Dr. Hasley. Beneath the mountains were caverns that the Office of Naval Intelligence had converted into a top secret facility. It was fortified and hardened against radiation, and could possibly withstand anything up to and including a direct nuclear strike.

Pick the 80 MT part, knowing it was in reference to the 300 meters thick ceiling made of concrete and reinforced steel, but ditch the context, which is the ceiling part, and swap it with some random wall instead.
While the original quote meant the ceiling would provide protecting against a 80 MT nuke, not a mere wall can do it.

But do we even know that Hasley was in Castle Reach when she thought about the 300 meters of concrete and steel above her head?
A complex is a rather large ensemble of elements.

Halopedia says that:
"Located in the Epsilon Eridani system in FLEETCOM Sector One, the planet Reach was one of the most important headquarters for the UNSC and the main supplier of military and civilian spacecraft. HIGHCOM, FLEETCOM and the UNSC Marine Corps had headquarters on Reach, as well as many primary ONI bases, which included CASTLE Base."

If this is correct, the room where Hasley was may have been another base, another section, elsewhere than in that Castle.

What we can see is that Eric Nylund, writte of TFOR, was the very first one who made a distinction between the sector where Hasley gave her speech in 2517, and the base she was moved to later on, in 2552.

Mystery solved, Hig's cherry picking atomized.

Oh and just for the kicks:

And no, 'Eventually, the layout would be similar' isn't considered valid a valid argument in proper English - it has to make sense first.

Proper English doesn't care about the validity of an argument. It only cares about the meaning of words and if sentences are understandable.
I'm deeply sorry if 'Eventually, the layout would be similar' is too hard for you to grasp.

Which, of course, renders the other paragraph nonsensical. However, feel free to try again, with proper English this time. Keeping in mind that the word 'same' does not mean the same thing as the word 'similar'.

"Similar" is proper English. The sentence is proper English. However, the right word was "same", not "similar". Then pick "same layout" if it pleases you.
It's kinda sad that much of your arguments are now going to hinge on cherry picking and mockery of English usage, while you're actually doing a poor job at it.

Which was, of course, given with no context and makes 0 sense. Even SpartanElite said that "I think it was referring to stealth ships, yachts, Longswords and other small ships, not larger warships like corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers and super carriers", and he's practically the only impartial person in this debate.
Yes, it really makes sense that a missile that ships commonly carry in the hundreds can kill everything else in a single shot, right? And that Covenant ships can take hundreds of these missiles without shields, yet UNSC ships die to one? I am aware that you like to break canon in order to force through your favoured interpretation of whatever quote, but try using logic for once.
Clavian has, of course, not proven that Archer missiles are sub-kiloton, ever.

It's more like the myth that figures are generally that consistent is just that, a myth.
For the reminder, "all but" can also mean "almost" or nearly. That's English, if you want to know.

No one ever said that the Archer missile detonated on the surface besides. Let's just imagine, oh my, that it's a HE projectile which flies at a high speed and can penetrate those 100-200 cm of armour.
Not to say, btw, that the UNSC didn't use its own ships against each other. All it had to deal with was the insurgents, people who barely could get their hands on Archer missiles.
It also goes without saying that in general, UNSC ships, as per Halo books (but never seen in games) rely on PD guns to shoot down enemy projectiles.

That said, considering that only largest vessels could withstand an Archer also works, although you have to realize that a smaller ship protected by only dozens of centimeters of that TA that can withstand gigatons, would laugh at the mere idea of being damaged by a sub-kiloton chemical explosive. More likely, the Archer would use its own momentum to get through the lighter plating.
How could the Archers be more than sub-kiloton, or hell, say, low kilotons? Do we have... do you have any evidence that they used super-compressed chemicals, nano or not?

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

Ah, suddenly thrusters and coilguns don't exist, so a nuclear bomb must achieve its impact velocity on the merits of its own weight only?
Good. It's not like our science is already exploring the very near-future applications of hyper-velocity projectiles (stuff studied since the 90s or perhaps even earlier).

So apparently you still can't read, so I'll just have to requote the relevant part until you decide to read it properly.

Originally Posted by Myself

There are also limits to how far something can penetrate. Beyond a certain velocity (i.e. hypervelocity), the only important factor is the area mass density of the projectile versus the density of the target. Making it faster doesn't make it penetrate any more.

Anyway, the
major reason nukes are even designed to be earth-penetrating in the first place is to enhance the coupling effect with the ground.

Most of this benefit is gained within the first three metres. Penetrating much further just defeats the purpose of using an explosive in the first place and you might as well just use a giant kinetic-kill gun.

Then if it's not an equation, was is the empirical event this scaling was based upon?

The section I quoted from this article a few posts ago.

Yes, and the sky is blue. Are you going to pick every word I say just to make a useless point?
Are you that pathetically craving for credits?

No, I'm making a point which should be obvious. The fact that access points are required are irrelevant to the depth of the base from the point on the surface at which there is an entrance, because a tunnel of arbitrary length can connect them.

Wellis says, oh, "if the outside portion of the room, essentially the outside part of the walls, ceiling, and floor, was directly hit by an 80 megaton nuke the room would survive the blast." Not exactly what the book said, and that even when going with the lite-quote.
SE understands your point, but doesn't say he agrees. I'm yet to see him take a position.

My point was that they understood something very quickly which apparently took you almost two years to understand. I didn't mention agreement.

Safe that the 80 MT reference nuke was written within the context of a factory-complex with a 300 meters thick lid above, and that the First Strike quote tells that the base could withstand a nuclear strike.

Pick the 80 MT part, knowing it was in reference to the 300 meters thick ceiling made of concrete and reinforced steel, but ditch the context, which is the ceiling part, and swap it with some random wall instead.
While the original quote meant the ceiling would provide protecting against a 80 MT nuke, not a mere wall can do it.

Nope. It's written in reference to a room. The quote gives specificity to the room. You're literally denying the author's words by claiming that his specificity is incorrect and his quote actually applies to the whole facility.

But do we even know that Hasley was in Castle Reach when she thought about the 300 meters of concrete and steel above her head?
A complex is a rather large ensemble of elements.

Halopedia says that:
"Located in the Epsilon Eridani system in FLEETCOM Sector One, the planet Reach was one of the most important headquarters for the UNSC and the main supplier of military and civilian spacecraft. HIGHCOM, FLEETCOM and the UNSC Marine Corps had headquarters on Reach, as well as many primary ONI bases, which included CASTLE Base."

If this is correct, the room where Hasley was may have been another base, another section, elsewhere than in that Castle.

What we can see is that Eric Nylund, writte of TFOR, was the very first one who made a distinction between the sector where Hasley gave her speech in 2517, and the base she was moved to later on, in 2552.

Mystery solved, Hig's cherry picking atomized.

Your appeal to Halopedia is hilarious (no, Halopedia isn't a valid source.). Instead, your desperate cherrypicking of quotes actually undermines your own point. If you had read the book instead of cherrypicking, you would have understood this.
For example: " It wasn't marked on any map, but it was where they trained for months with Dr. Hasley."
Yes, Castle is indeed where Dr Halsey was stationed during their training. Which, incidentally, began right after the 80 megaton quote. You'd also know that they even graduate from the exact same amphitheatre.

You'd also know that a quote states "All other personnel had been transferred to other operations", while we also know that CPO Mendez was her program training instructor at the start and up until graduation (which is approximately when the Covenant attacked), meaning that she was moved before the initiation of the Spartan II program. The idea that she somehow operated the Spartan II program herself at some point during this time without funding and personnel is idiotic.

Another quote also says "ONI's research facility" instead of "One of ONI's research facilities". Which, to anyone competent at English, means that there is one facility.

You would know all of this if you were capable of reading comprehension.

Proper English doesn't care about the validity of an argument. It only cares about the meaning of words and if sentences are understandable.
I'm deeply sorry if 'Eventually, the layout would be similar' is too hard for you to grasp.

Aparently I have to explain simple concepts to you again. What it means that if your sentence is to be interpreted such that it follows your argument, such an interpretation would not be the correct one.

It's more like the myth that figures are generally that consistent is just that, a myth.
For the reminder, "all but" can also mean "almost" or nearly. That's English, if you want to know.

No, it's completely consistent that Covenant ships take multiple Archer missiles unshielded without failure, and that UNSC ships hold multiple Archer missles (and can also survive internal detonation of such missiles).
Anyway, as a reminder, "all but X" means "everything except for X", not "almost" or "nearly", which is laughably bad English.

No one ever said that the Archer missile detonated on the surface besides. Let's just imagine, oh my, that it's a HE projectile which flies at a high speed and can penetrate those 100-200 cm of armour.
Not to say, btw, that the UNSC didn't use its own ships against each other. All it had to deal with was the insurgents, people who barely could get their hands on Archer missiles.

Ghosts of Onyx states that the Rebels had ships, such as the Destroyer, Origami.
Actually, according to the Halo ICS, destroyers are one of the most heavily armoured ship classes by Titanium-A thickness in the fleet.

It also goes without saying that in general, UNSC ships, as per Halo books (but never seen in games) rely on PD guns to shoot down enemy projectiles.

That said, considering that only largest vessels could withstand an Archer also works, although you have to realize that a smaller ship protected by only dozens of centimeters of that TA that can withstand gigatons, would laugh at the mere idea of being damaged by a sub-kiloton chemical explosive. More likely, the Archer would use its own momentum to get through the lighter plating.
How could the Archers be more than sub-kiloton, or hell, say, low kilotons? Do we have... do you have any evidence that they used super-compressed chemicals, nano or not?

A better question here is "why haven't you proven your claim that Archer missiles are sub-kiloton, yet?"

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

So apparently you still can't read, so I'll just have to requote the relevant part until you decide to read it properly.

Need I remind you that all that started because I made a reference to the Golevka simulation? and that at this time, I had not accepted the 2 km depth?
Read: "Now, who ever said that the base was under 2 kilometers of granite?"

Now, going by the very paper you linked to, in lose theory, the 80 MT nuke would have the same effects as a 1600 GT nuke if detonated at a depth of 1 m, and 2,560 MT at five meters.
But that's in general for yields in the kiloton range, or very close to this range.
Yet: "For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet."

1000 ft is 300 meters.

Anyway, the major reason nukes are even designed to be earth-penetrating in the first place is to enhance the coupling effect with the ground.

Most of this benefit is gained within the first three metres. Penetrating much further just defeats the purpose of using an explosive in the first place and you might as well just use a giant kinetic-kill gun.

This is irrelevant because using such a gun for a similar yield would prove superior anyway.
Now, as per the paper, the problem is the device's ability to survive the deeper penetration, since "additional depth of penetration increases ground-shock coupling".

Of course, I could argue that there has never been any mention of the nuke being buried whatsoever.

No, I'm making a point which should be obvious. The fact that access points are required are irrelevant to the depth of the base from the point on the surface at which there is an entrance, because a tunnel of arbitrary length can connect them.

But the point of a tunnel is that it channels the overpressure rather well.

Nope. It's written in reference to a room. The quote gives specificity to the room. You're literally denying the author's words by claiming that his specificity is incorrect and his quote actually applies to the whole facility.

Said room was not just a thin wall plus countless meters of rock. What stood between the room and the nuke was a 300 meters thick ceiling, because there was no specified interruption, just a mix of reinforced steel and concrete. That's quite the point of a bunker.

But don't feel obligated to stop in your tracks, and continue with that wank that walls of concrete could withstand a direct 80 MT nuke.


Also, coming from the one who is, in essence, literally implying that Nylund couldn't make up his mind between a depth of 300 and 2000 meters, that's rather rich.

Your appeal to Halopedia is hilarious (no, Halopedia isn't a valid source.).

I go to Halopedia to complete information and verify the possibility of certain ideas. In this case, I wanted to know how many structures Reach counted.
I know this is a bit hard for you to grasp, but I said "If this is correct".

IF

The conclusive aspect of my final commentary was solely based on the excerpts from the book.

Instead, your desperate cherrypicking of quotes actually undermines your own point. If you had read the book instead of cherrypicking, you would have understood this.
For example: " It wasn't marked on any map, but it was where they trained for months with Dr. Hasley."

Unless this is TFOR, you can swallow that stupid attack of yours, because I don't own First Strike.

Yes, Castle is indeed where Dr Halsey was stationed during their training. Which, incidentally, began right after the 80 megaton quote. You'd also know that they even graduate from the exact same amphitheatre.

Nothing here proves that said amphitheater was located deeper than 300 meters. Those are Nylund's words.
Same Nylund who put the "Castle" complex 2000 meters below the mountains.

You'd also know that a quote states "All other personnel had been transferred to other operations", while we also know that CPO Mendez was her program training instructor at the start and up until graduation (which is approximately when the Covenant attacked), meaning that she was moved before the initiation of the Spartan II program. The idea that she somehow operated the Spartan II program herself at some point during this time without funding and personnel is idiotic.

Idiotic or not, nothing here proves that said amphitheater was located deeper than 300 meters. Try again.

Another quote also says "ONI's research facility" instead of "One of ONI's research facilities". Which, to anyone competent at English, means that there is one facility.
You would know all of this if you were capable of reading comprehension.

Bah, keep your ridiculous "reading comprehension" in that mouth of yours. Not only "ONI's research facility" doesn't exclude other research facilities (they could be speaking of one amongst many, like talking about a Navy's carrier or destroyer, even when there's more than one), it also says "research facility", which can be understood as there are other facilities, for other purposes.

Besides, the bit about being several ONI facilities comes from Halopedia, not me. What matters is that there are facilities (plural), and they are all relevant to the project:

Originally Posted by TFOR

“But we have one hundred and fifty test subjects to consider, and facilities and funding for only half that number. It’s a simple mathematical elimination, Lieutenant. That child was one of the lucky ones—either that or he is extraordinarily fast. Either way, he’s in.”

Originally Posted by TFOR

On the planet’s surface were Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools, and between her underground facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete. The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke.

Originally Posted by TFOR

“I’m sure you would have.” She folded her hands in her lap. “Our situation has changed. Where are my Spartans? They are not in their barracks, nor on any of the ranges.”
Mendez hesitated. “They can no longer train here, ma’am. We had to find them . . . other facilities.”

Not to say that the first day of training for the future Spartans started with them walking out of barracks, out in the open, to go running on a grass field.

Aparently I have to explain simple concepts to you again. What it means that if your sentence is to be interpreted such that it follows your argument, such an interpretation would not be the correct one.

Blah blah blah. I already admitted using the wrong word. Similar/same. The value of the argument was entirely detached of the grammatical accuracy of the sentence, which was perfectly correct.
Now stop embarrassing yourself with such retarded nitpicking, and try to provide proofs in favour of your über-ceiling argument for a change.

No, it's completely consistent that Covenant ships take multiple Archer missiles unshielded without failure, and that UNSC ships hold multiple Archer missles (and can also survive internal detonation of such missiles).

I didn't know about the internal detonation. Of course, how much internal destruction they could cause would still be interesting to know!

Anyway, as a reminder, "all but X" means "everything except for X", not "almost" or "nearly", which is laughably bad English.

Almost, nearly, as in I've all but finished the book. This expression was used by Andrew Marvell in "Thoughts in a Garden": "Society is all but rude, To this delicious solitude." [Late 1500s]
Likely copied from here.

A complicated issue, isn't it?

Ghosts of Onyx states that the Rebels had ships, such as the Destroyer, Origami.
Actually, according to the Halo ICS, destroyers are one of the most heavily armoured ship classes by Titanium-A thickness in the fleet.

But technically, how does that directly mean they'd be able to resist, say two dozens of AMs hitting it? Just asking.

A better question here is "why haven't you proven your claim that Archer missiles are sub-kiloton, yet?"

Clavian claims there are enough references about AMs using chemical warheads. Even large chemical weapons tend to be sub-kiloton (even the FOAB/MOAB are, despite their thermobaric properties). The contrary, which would be an exception, would require evidence.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

Need I remind you that all that started because I made a reference to the Golevka simulation? and that at this time, I had not accepted the 2 km depth?
Read: "Now, who ever said that the base was under 2 kilometers of granite?"

I was, of course, addressing the argument you posted more recently, whether or not you've accepted something else a few posts ago, and it stands, unless you're retracting this.

Now, going by the very paper you linked to, in lose theory, the 80 MT nuke would have the same effects as a 1600 GT nuke if detonated at a depth of 1 m, and 2,560 MT at five meters.
But that's in general for yields in the kiloton range, or very close to this range.
Yet: "For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet."

1000 ft is 300 meters.

Read it again. The quote specifies a 1.2 megaton warhead on an EARTH PENETRATING WEAPON crushing bunkers to depth X (in actuality), i.e., the depth at which it destroys bunkers already takes the benefit from being detonated underground into account.

This is irrelevant because using such a gun for a similar yield would prove superior anyway.
Now, as per the paper, the problem is the device's ability to survive the deeper penetration, since "additional depth of penetration increases ground-shock coupling".

Of course, I could argue that there has never been any mention of the nuke being buried whatsoever.

It already mentions that most of the benefit from increased ground-explosion coupling is attained within the first three metres. Obviously, there is a maximum, and making it penetrate more will merely make the efficiency asymptote towards that maximum.
Anyway, the important point is that what you're proposing is a hybrid gun-nuke system, not a nuke, and thus the quote would say "direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke boosted by a hypervelocity gun" intstead of "80-megaton nuke".

But the point of a tunnel is that it channels the overpressure rather well.

No it doesn't. Rock conducts shockwaves many, many times better than air. Because solids tend to deform elastically unlike gases, thus losing much less energy to random heating than air. For example, an approaching train may be inaudible normally, but be plainly heard when you put your ear to the ground.
As far as I am aware, these principles are taught in early education, which is why I am linking you to mostly child-focussed websites.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...age&q=&f=false
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sch...iew=activities
http://sciencesquad.questacon.edu.au...g_hangers.html

Said room was not just a thin wall plus countless meters of rock. What stood between the room and the nuke was a 300 meters thick ceiling, because there was no specified interruption, just a mix of reinforced steel and concrete. That's quite the point of a bunker.

But don't feel obligated to stop in your tracks, and continue with that wank that walls of concrete could withstand a direct 80 MT nuke.


Also, coming from the one who is, in essence, literally implying that Nylund couldn't make up his mind between a depth of 300 and 2000 meters, that's rather rich.

Nope. The quote is specific to a nuke hitting a certain room directly. That is why it says "The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke" instead of "Only the ceiling of the entire complex that this room is inside could take a direct (remember, this means it isn't a direct hit on the room itself!) from an 80-megaton nuke".

I wanted to know how many structures Reach counted.

According to normal English, 'had' is more appropriate there than 'counted'.

snip

After going over FS and TFoR several times (yes, it was very tedious), I have concluded that we cannot assume that Castle base and Halsey's base for the 80 megaton quote are the same, because there are inconsistencies that contradicts this. So, yes, this makes you effectively correct on this point, and means that all of the other quotes aren't valid anymore because they all refer to the other facility, hence you can't rely on them anymore.

I didn't know about the internal detonation. Of course, how much internal destruction they could cause would still be interesting to know!

"The Covenant energy beam carved a spiral pattern in the hull, shredding armor and puncturing deep into the ship. The ship lurched sickeningly as the beam played across the portside Archer pods, the missiles detonated in their tubes."
The result is:
"Port launch and storage bays have been breached—fires on all decks, all sections. Primary fusion chamber is breached."
An unknown amount of this damage was dealt by the Covenant energy beam.
Also note that this is the Pillar of Autumn, one of the most resilient ships the UNSC has.
Take that however you will.

Almost, nearly, as in I've all but finished the book. This expression was used by Andrew Marvell in "Thoughts in a Garden": "Society is all but rude, To this delicious solitude." [Late 1500s]
Likely copied from here.

A complicated issue, isn't it?

Obviously, you have to take what I said in context. The quote is:
"a ship-to ship weapon capable of crippling all but the largest vessels in the human fleet"
Now, let us see what makes sense.
"a ship-to ship weapon capable of crippling everything except for the largest vessels in the human fleet" Yes.
"a ship-to ship weapon capable of crippling nearly the largest vessels in the human fleet" No.
"a ship-to ship weapon capable of crippling almost the largest vessels in the human fleet" No.

Anyway, I regularly have to put up with posts that make about as much sense as this, so I have a right to complain. And you must be doing it deliberately, because someone who's good at English would actually make sense.

But technically, how does that directly mean they'd be able to resist, say two dozens of AMs hitting it? Just asking.

I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion.

Clavian claims there are enough references about AMs using chemical warheads. Even large chemical weapons tend to be sub-kiloton (even the FOAB/MOAB are, despite their thermobaric properties). The contrary, which would be an exception, would require evidence.

I see, the old Argumentum ad Clavicula. I don't actually care what kind of silliness Clavian claimed (and he claimed a lot of things). If you're going to bring this up, prove that Archer missiles are sub-kiloton under your own power.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

I was, of course, addressing the argument you posted more recently, whether or not you've accepted something else a few posts ago, and it stands, unless you're retracting this.

The argument I posted more recently is still in line with my primary belief that the complex in question was 300 beneath the ground, and that I still don't see a reason to force a contradiction, when Nylund himself identified two different depths, with two different makeups as part of the artificial/natural armour above the undergroudn structures.
We can still speak about nuke power, destruction and such topics, they're interesting and those links won't be lost.

Read it again. The quote specifies a 1.2 megaton warhead on an EARTH PENETRATING WEAPON crushing bunkers to depth X (in actuality), i.e., the depth at which it destroys bunkers already takes the benefit from being detonated underground into account.

I didn't neglect that aspect.
I was just extrapolating about the abilities of a 80 MT nuke, using the same ratios for depth presented in the paper.

It already mentions that most of the benefit from increased ground-explosion coupling is attained within the first three metres. Obviously, there is a maximum, and making it penetrate more will merely make the efficiency asymptote towards that maximum.

You know, considering that "most" starts at 51%, that leaves quite enough extra coupling to gain with deeper explosions. Nor that it matters, since we don't even know if the nuke would detonate into the ground anyway.

Anyway, the important point is that what you're proposing is a hybrid gun-nuke system, not a nuke, and thus the quote would say "direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke boosted by a hypervelocity gun" intstead of "80-megaton nuke".

Perhaps, perhaps not. If we used a unburied charge scenario, it would just mean those 300 meters of artificial materials were weaker. I would be far more impressed if we were told that the nuke exploded at a depth of a couple meters, and the room still was not endangered.
Then what matters is also the kind of casing put around the nuke. If there's a few couple of tons of material around the nuke, it is ought to cause greater cratering.

Still, 300 meters of concrete and reinforced steel protecting a room (and the rest) from a 80 MT nuke detonated on the surface doesn't impress me much.

No it doesn't. Rock conducts shockwaves many, many times better than air. Because solids tend to deform elastically unlike gases, thus losing much less energy to random heating than air. For example, an approaching train may be inaudible normally, but be plainly heard when you put your ear to the ground.
As far as I am aware, these principles are taught in early education, which is why I am linking you to mostly child-focussed websites.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...age&q=&f=false
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sch...iew=activities
http://sciencesquad.questacon.edu.au...g_hangers.html

I'm afraid you're terribly missing the point. A tunnel is a fantastic candidate for channeling the over pressure of an air blast, and with a nuclear blast, this is ought to be tremendous.
You claimed that access points were irrelevant during one of those silly nitpicks of yours.
I for one never claimed that shockwaves through solid were meaningless or negligible. This is nothing short of a strawman, and a barely veiled ad hominem.
Now, a solid thick seal would obviously block said airblast, but since I don't know the layout of the base, my point stands.

Nope. The quote is specific to a nuke hitting a certain room directly. That is why it says "The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke" instead of "Only the ceiling of the entire complex that this room is inside could take a direct (remember, this means it isn't a direct hit on the room itself!) from an 80-megaton nuke".

And anyone with a modicum of reason would understand that while she refers to the room she's standing in, the direct hit would refer to a hit on the surface.
There is obviously not much point arguing that walls of concrete and reinforced steel could withstand a direct eighty megatons hit.

Besides, you keep evading the simple fact that the ceiling is a continuous artificial assembly of materials such as concrete and reinforced steel. So you cannot pick an arbitrary thickness. It's either 300 meters or nothing.

Since you don't even know how thick the walls are, you can't even argue that if some divine being pulled the room and its 300 meters thick ceiling and walls out of its bedrock, and placed it outside, and lobbed a 80 MT nuke at it, the room would survive.
This fantastic premise itself would require people to understand that what was formerly considered a room, would now be a building sitting out in the open, but still coming with walls of unknown thickness, and a ceiling still 300 meters high made of concrete and reinforced steel.

I'm really growing tired of that stupid scenario of yours that proves to be a thousand times more ridiculous that this former "phasing-nuke" strawman you tried to pass as an argument of mine.

So until you can properly and intelligibly describe what that fancy scenario of yours is, and what we should exactly understand by a room that can withstand a direct 80 MT nuclear hit according to you, I'll consider that all you have done is trolling over several pages repeatedly, obtusely refusing to make your point clear, as simple as that, despite the great many occasions you had to do so. It is rather clear that instead of stating your point a crystal clear way, you have never even tried to explain anything. You have been dodging the question on and on. I'm just tired of your endless and fruitless merry go round.

You have one post to end this. Period.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

You know, considering that "most" starts at 51%, that leaves quite enough extra coupling to gain with deeper explosions. Nor that it matters, since we don't even know if the nuke would detonate into the ground anyway.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If we used a unburied charge scenario, it would just mean those 300 meters of artificial materials were weaker. I would be far more impressed if we were told that the nuke exploded at a depth of a couple meters, and the room still was not endangered.
Then what matters is also the kind of casing put around the nuke. If there's a few couple of tons of material around the nuke, it is ought to cause greater cratering.

Still, 300 meters of concrete and reinforced steel protecting a room (and the rest) from a 80 MT nuke detonated on the surface doesn't impress me much.

Nice try, except it assumes that your insane interpretation of the quote applies. And it doesn't.

I'm afraid you're terribly missing the point. A tunnel is a fantastic candidate for channeling the over pressure of an air blast, and with a nuclear blast, this is ought to be tremendous.
You claimed that access points were irrelevant during one of those silly nitpicks of yours.
I for one never claimed that shockwaves through solid were meaningless or negligible. This is nothing short of a strawman, and a barely veiled ad hominem.
Now, a solid thick seal would obviously block said airblast, but since I don't know the layout of the base, my point stands.

A tunnel is a fantastic candidate for massive smearing of the shockwave from a sharp pressure peak into a very soft one due to reflection resulting in widely-varying path lengths for literally every direction from the epicentre of the blast. Especially if the tunnel isn't a straight line.
This means that what will hit the door on the other end of the tunnel will, unlike the original, powerful shockwave, is a much, much more gradual rise and then fall in pressure.
This is compounded by massive attenuation of the shockwave which wouldn't occur so much in a rigid, elastic material like rock.
Then it hits the door. Sealed or not, what shockwaves like to do when they encounter such an abrupt change in medium, is to bounce off. Which means that plenty of the shockwave is just going to be reflected backwards, while a small amount will manage to go around the door if it isn't sealed, and another small amount will be absorbed by the door and transmitted further.
Last but not least is the fact that to do any real damage to the facility, the shockwave has to be transferred to the rigid structural supports. And an air-transmitted shockwave utterly fails at this because, as above, most of it just reflects off rather than being absorbed by a rigid structure.

Not that this helps you at all in terms of your claims.

And of course, you completely failed to understand my argument, in your naive eagerness to bleat 'strawman!'. I'm obviously providing evidence against your as-yet-unsupported claim that the shockwave will be significantly more efficiently conducted down an air tunnel than rock, not claiming that you're arguing that conduction through rock is ineffective. Pay attention.

And anyone with a modicum of reason would understand that while she refers to the room she's standing in, the direct hit would refer to a hit on the surface.
There is obviously not much point arguing that walls of concrete and reinforced steel could withstand a direct eighty megatons hit.

Besides, you keep evading the simple fact that the ceiling is a continuous artificial assembly of materials such as concrete and reinforced steel. So you cannot pick an arbitrary thickness. It's either 300 meters or nothing.

Since you don't even know how thick the walls are, you can't even argue that if some divine being pulled the room and its 300 meters thick ceiling and walls out of its bedrock, and placed it outside, and lobbed a 80 MT nuke at it, the room would survive.
This fantastic premise itself would require people to understand that what was formerly considered a room, would now be a building sitting out in the open, but still coming with walls of unknown thickness, and a ceiling still 300 meters high made of concrete and reinforced steel.

How about we go through the quote again?
"Reach was one of the UNSC’s largest industrial bases, ringed with high-orbit gun batteries, space docks, and a fleet of heavily-armed capital ships. On the planet’s surface were Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools,"
- This boils down to 'In the event of an attack, there are lots of defending UNSC forces in between to intercept the bad guys before they reach the facility'

"and between her underground facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete."
- 'She works somewhere in an underground complex. Between the whole complex and the surface, there are three hundred metres of hardened steel and concrete.'

"The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke."
- 'If you hit the room directly with an 80-megaton nuke, it would survive'.

We know that this is in context of the room, so the strike must be specific to the room. This leads to your 'the 300m ceiling is part of the room!' assertion, which is the sort of crack-fantasy required for your interpretation.

Your nonsensical interpretation requires that the 300 metre thick ceiling is directly above the amphitheatre, and that this is the only way to score a direct hit (i.e., there is no way to hit the room in particular more directly).
This could only occur if the entire facility consisted of just a 300m steel/concrete ceiling directly above the amphitheatre, and 0 other rooms. Otherwise, hitting the top of the facility's ceiling wouldn't be the most direct way to nuke the room, because detonating the nuke against the wall of an adjacent room would be more direct.

Of course, you could keep pretending that the quote says "The facility containing the room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke" or "between her room and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete and nothing else." or "Only the ceiling and not the other walls of the room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke and also I forgot to mention that this room is directly below the 300m concrete and steel barrier", but that would just make you wrong and in denial.

So, prove the necessary assumption for your argument that the amphitheatre is the only room in the facility and that it is directly below the 300m barrier.

I'm really growing tired of that stupid scenario of yours that proves to be a thousand times more ridiculous that this former "phasing-nuke" strawman you tried to pass as an argument of mine.

Your claim that you are capable of adequate reading comprehension appears laughable when you take not just a blatant piece of sarcasm, but something I've gone to the length of actually identifying as sarcasm literally, as an argument supposedly attributed to you.

What I'm growing really tired of is your blatant inability to understand what should be a simple comprehension exercise which everyone understands except for you, and then accusing me of 'dodging' and being 'obtuse' when all I'm stating is the literal meaning of the quote itself, and when the quote in question is so simple that it is difficult and beyond the call of duty to explain it in any simpler fashion.

So until you can properly and intelligibly describe what that fancy scenario of yours is, and what we should exactly understand by a room that can withstand a direct 80 MT nuclear hit according to you, I'll consider that all you have done is trolling over several pages repeatedly, obtusely refusing to make your point clear, as simple as that, despite the great many occasions you had to do so. It is rather clear that instead of stating your point a crystal clear way, you have never even tried to explain anything. You have been dodging the question on and on. I'm just tired of your endless and fruitless merry go round.

You have one post to end this. Period.

Don't worry, I can understand that you'd want to run away from this debate as quickly as possible. If I were stuck with having to defend such idiotic assertions, bewildered and unable to comprehend things everyone else can understand, I'd be trying to exit the debate too, to avoid further embarassment. And I'm fine with that.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Originally Posted by higbvuyb

Nice try, except it assumes that your insane interpretation of the quote applies. And it doesn't.

The room where Hasley was could withstand a direct 80-megatons hit on the surface, because between her and the surface, there were 300 continuous meters of concrete and reinforced steel.

This would be hard to defend had the context no presented the base's defenses, passive and active, but since the author concluded his exposé by making a statement of the level of safety guaranteed, after detailing what made the base formidable in terms of defenses, it's all suddenly far more understandable and likely.
It's also saner, context wise, than this bizarre mental exercise of yours.

A tunnel is a fantastic candidate for massive smearing of the shockwave from a sharp pressure peak into a very soft one due to reflection resulting in widely-varying path lengths for literally every direction from the epicentre of the blast. Especially if the tunnel isn't a straight line.

A straight line shall do very fine. I didn't argue that the blast would explore the base and blow off bits and bobs around corners.

This means that what will hit the door on the other end of the tunnel will, unlike the original, powerful shockwave, is a much, much more gradual rise and then fall in pressure.

Depends how far the other door is when you got a nuclear warhead that poped at the entrance, and I never claimed that the shockwave would run down the entire complex, nor be of infinite force. Just pointing out that it's not a negligible thing if a nuke broke through the entrance. Since I don't know where the amphitheater was, I considered this aspect relevant.

This is compounded by massive attenuation of the shockwave which wouldn't occur so much in a rigid, elastic material like rock.
Then it hits the door. Sealed or not, what shockwaves like to do when they encounter such an abrupt change in medium, is to bounce off. Which means that plenty of the shockwave is just going to be reflected backwards, while a small amount will manage to go around the door if it isn't sealed, and another small amount will be absorbed by the door and transmitted further.

No need to go over that obvious fact, since I already said that a seal would block the shockwave.

Last but not least is the fact that to do any real damage to the facility, the shockwave has to be transferred to the rigid structural supports. And an air-transmitted shockwave utterly fails at this because, as above, most of it just reflects off rather than being absorbed by a rigid structure.

No, really?

Not that this helps you at all in terms of your claims.

Indeed, it has turned out to be more of side note more than anything else.

And of course, you completely failed to understand my argument, in your naive eagerness to bleat 'strawman!'. I'm obviously providing evidence against your as-yet-unsupported claim that the shockwave will be significantly more efficiently conducted down an air tunnel than rock, not claiming that you're arguing that conduction through rock is ineffective. Pay attention.

Pay attention? And what you try to understand that I never ever said that the air blast would make the ground shockwave irrelevant? I'm afraid you got caught in your hastily cobbled defense, and missed some crucial aspects.

But, really, this is not the point that mattered. What I really wanted to get clarified was your interpretation of the excerpt, and something more substantiated than "oh but it shouldn't require any explanation you dolt."

How about we go through the quote again?
"Reach was one of the UNSC’s largest industrial bases, ringed with high-orbit gun batteries, space docks, and a fleet of heavily-armed capital ships. On the planet’s surface were Marine and Navy Special Warfare training grounds, OCS schools,"
- This boils down to 'In the event of an attack, there are lots of defending UNSC forces in between to intercept the bad guys before they reach the facility'

"and between her underground facilities and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete."
- 'She works somewhere in an underground complex. Between the whole complex and the surface, there are three hundred metres of hardened steel and concrete.'

"The room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke."
- 'If you hit the room directly with an 80-megaton nuke, it would survive'.

And of course, a nuke has more chances to hit the room than the surface?

Pretending that a room could withstand a 80 MT nuke, when we know that even before knowing anything about the Covenant, the UNSC built that part of the complex on Reach after considering that 300 meters of concrete and reinforced steel would be absolutely necessary to offer protection against any weapon the UNSC's current enemy could have, it's rather obvious that the walls of said room, built with, at best, the same materials, or poorer ones, would not survive the same nuclear detonation without just as much thickness.
Say hello to your 300 meters thick ceiling and walls.

Any claim to the contrary is frankly ludicrous.

I mean, you're really telling me that a mere wall of concrete and reinforced steel thrown in for good measure, would withstand a point blank nuclear detonation of 80 megatons?
Really?

And that is not insane?

We know that this is in context of the room, so the strike must be specific to the room. This leads to your 'the 300m ceiling is part of the room!' assertion, which is the sort of crack-fantasy required for your interpretation.

Your nonsensical interpretation requires that the 300 metre thick ceiling is directly above the amphitheatre, and that this is the only way to score a direct hit (i.e., there is no way to hit the room in particular more directly).

There are not many ways to score a direct hit against the room than go through this thick protection (aside from your ludicrous nuke-phasing strawman).

Otherwise, you can argue that the base's security has been compromised, and that a commando has infiltrated it and placed a nuclear charge close to the room, sufficiently close that it would be considered a direct hit.

Of course, talking about a "hit" here is a bit funny considering that in such an operation, no nuke would have been launched.
You may not speak of a hit when you have not thrown, fired, shot or launched any projectile. Generally, for nuclear attacks, it strongly implies missiles, IRBMs, MRBMs or MIRVs.
It's, at the very least, not the most obvious meaning of the word.

This could only occur if the entire facility consisted of just a 300m steel/concrete ceiling directly above the amphitheatre, and 0 other rooms. Otherwise, hitting the top of the facility's ceiling wouldn't be the most direct way to nuke the room, because detonating the nuke against the wall of an adjacent room would be more direct.

You know, from my point of view (that the 80 MT hit is on the surface), even if there are other rooms above the amphitheater, they would not matter at all if the nuke managed to breach through the 300 meters thick protection first.
Oh sure, you could say that the amphitheater is not just below that protection, but then, again, if the nuke blew through that super-thick protection, why should I suddenly believe that the inherently and considerably slimmer layers of floor/ceiling between each level, would be better at protecting people against a 80 MT nuke if 300 meters of hardened protective shell terribly failed?

Of course, you could keep pretending that the quote says "The facility containing the room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke" or "between her room and the surface were three hundred meters of hardened steel and concrete and nothing else." or "Only the ceiling and not the other walls of the room where she now stood could withstand a direct hit from an 80-megaton nuke and also I forgot to mention that this room is directly below the 300m concrete and steel barrier", but that would just make you wrong and in denial.

So, prove the necessary assumption for your argument that the amphitheatre is the only room in the facility and that it is directly below the 300m barrier.

Even if it wasn't, it would make much difference.
Option 1: Would the nuke fail to penetrate the 300 meters, ALL the rooms would be safe.
Option 2: Would the nuke break through, the remained of the blast if there is any, the shockwave at first, and then the accelerated debris and gravity would much likely finish the complex in a pancake fashion. Mainly because if the ceiling of the upper rooms doesn't collapse, then you can consider that the 300 meters of concrete and steel have done their job, so that's back to option 1.

[quote]

Your claim that you are capable of adequate reading comprehension appears laughable when you take not just a blatant piece of sarcasm, but something I've gone to the length of actually identifying as sarcasm literally, as an argument supposedly attributed to you.

Ahem. That it was obvious sarcasm (especially since no species involved there could such a thing) doesn't make it less of a mockery of my position by an absurd strawman, like I even tried to pretend something so silly.

What I'm growing really tired of is your blatant inability to understand what should be a simple comprehension exercise which everyone understands except for you, and then accusing me of 'dodging' and being 'obtuse' when all I'm stating is the literal meaning of the quote itself, and when the quote in question is so simple that it is difficult and beyond the call of duty to explain it in any simpler fashion.

It is, unless you can prove that the UNSC have access to unobtainium, and then explain why they'd put hundreds of meters of dense stuff above the complex when the pirates and insurgents would have very hard times acquiring high grade military weapons, the epitome being nukes.

Yet, when I'm asking you to explain what are the proper conditions of that direct hit, like, what that room would really be about in your mind, how thick the walls should be, also what they should be made of, and where the nuke should be, oh the surprise! You... again... give your best shot at precisely avoiding providing any clear position on this case.

Pointing to a quote and repeating that there's no need for any further explanation in a much pedantic way is not a demonstration, safe in foolery.

It's fine to attack my interpretation, but failing to show how yours is superior or even makes sense is not.

And your "everyone" is pretty much composed of only two individuals: Wellis and SpartanElite.
(You may also want to read the first pages of this thread, and poke your head around, to see that this criticism is not exclusively mine.)

Originally Posted by Wellis

Oragahn, I remember reading that part in The Fall of Reach, and it is saying that if the outside portion of the room, essentially the outside part of the walls, ceiling, and floor, was directly hit by an 80 megaton nuke the room would survive the blast.

The outside portion of the room? What is that supposed to mean, when we're dealing with an underground complex? The side of the walls that point outwards?
Oh fine, they have survived. However, the stuff and people inside the room... I'm afraid they're gone now.

Or, the outside, as the surface of the walls/ceiling/floor that is in contact with the room's air?
That's it? Claiming that the walls wouldn't even crack if a 80 MT nuke was to be detonated against them?
Walls which would have no reason to be made of anything better than concrete and reinforced steel, since this was deemed enough as a protection against enemy fire?

Is that your support? Jesus.

And SE's was just something different, but not even better: an analogy about a tank, which as I said, is about the same if you pulled that room out of its underground context and placed it on a plain, and lobbed a 80 MT nuclear nuke at it, which relies on such a flawed premise that I don't even know where to start from in order to say how a failure this analogy is. In essence, it doesn't even give any idea about how thick the walls would be, nor what they would be made of, nor doesn't give any explanation as to why the UNSC would use unobtainium for the separation walls of its rooms, but decide to only use shitty concrete and a variant of steel for the main protection.

And that's where we are. You, hiding between two absurd claims, and dodging any request for an intelligent and concise clarification.
With, in the background, the implication that walls would survive a direct 80 MT nuclear explosion, when the UNSC considered that 300 meters of dense protection would be absolutely necessary, and with that same UNSC preferring to use that super duper miracle material of yours for the walls of its rooms, instead of using it in the 300 meters thick lid meant to protect the whole complex.

Even several posts ago, I made an invitation for such a clarification, by saying something akin to "OK then let's admit I'm totally dumb." But even there, you couldn't keep it simple.

It's painfully clear why you don't want to state your opinion openly: it's retarded beyond salvation, and would expose you as a Haloïte wanker.

But don't be afraid, we got that from your very first post in this thread.

As final note, since you refused to state your opinion and preferred trolling around, I accept your concession. Thanks.

[higbvuyb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oragahn

The room where Hasley was could withstand a direct 80-megaton hit on the surface, because between her and the surface, there were 300 continuous meters of concrete and reinforced steel.

This would be hard to defend had the context not presented the base's defenses, passive and active, but since the author concluded his exposé by making a statement of the level of safety guaranteed, after detailing what made the base formidable in terms of defenses, it's all suddenly far more understandable and likely.
It's also saner, context wise, than this bizarre mental exercise of yours.

Nope. The reason why you are wrong should be clear to anyone with a basic grasp of grammar. Your false insertion of 'because' into your paraphrasing merely highlights your non-comprehension.

A straight line shall do very fine. I didn't argue that the blast would explore the base and blow off bits and bobs around corners.

Except we don't know if the tunnel is straight at all, so yes, a straight tunnel would do fine, if you could prove that it was straight.

Depends how far the other door is when you got a nuclear warhead that exploded at the entrance, and I never claimed that the shockwave would run down the entire complex, nor be of infinite force. Just pointing out that it's not a negligible thing if a nuke broke through the entrance. Since I don't know where the amphitheater was, I considered this aspect relevant.

And you haven't proven that it is important at all. Also, you've almost managed a strawman fallacy of a strawman fallacy. I suppose you might consider that an achievement.

No need to go over that obvious fact, since I already said that a seal would block the shockwave.

Yes, there certainly is a need. Because if you could read, you'd know that I was talking about both sealed and unsealed doors.

Pay attention? And what you try to understand that I never ever said that the air blast would make the ground shockwave irrelevant? I'm afraid you got caught in your hastily cobbled defense, and missed some crucial aspects.

You still fail to understand. I'm refuting your still-unsupported claim that the tunnel is significantly more effective at transferring a shockwave than the surrounding rock.

And of course, a nuke has more chances to hit the room than the surface?

Pretending that a room could withstand a 80 MT nuke, when we know that even before knowing anything about the Covenant, the UNSC built that part of the complex on Reach after considering that 300 meters of concrete and reinforced steel would be absolutely necessary to offer protection against any weapon the UNSC's current enemy could have, it's rather obvious that the walls of said room, built with, at best, the same materials, or poorer ones, would not survive the same nuclear detonation without just as much thickness.
Say hello to your 300 meters thick ceiling and walls.

Any claim to the contrary is frankly ludicrous.

I mean, you're really telling me that a mere wall of concrete and reinforced steel thrown in for good measure, would withstand a point blank nuclear detonation of 80 megatons?
Really?

And that is not insane?
...
You know, from my point of view (that the 80 MT hit is on the surface), even if there are other rooms above the amphitheater, they would not matter at all if the nuke managed to breach through the 300 meters thick protection first.
Oh sure, you could say that the amphitheater is not just below that protection, but then, again, if the nuke blew through that super-thick protection, why should I suddenly believe that the inherently and considerably slimmer layers of floor/ceiling between each level, would be better at protecting people against a 80 MT nuke if 300 meters of hardened protective shell terribly failed?

So you're claiming that the three-hundred-metres above the entire facility is designed to 'offer protection against any weapon the UNSC's current enemy could have' on the basis of that being one of many layers of defence mentioned? Feel free to prove this, and that this goes up to 80 megaton nukes, and that the room is necessarily inferiorly or equally built to the rest of the facility.

There are not many ways to score a direct hit against the room than go through this thick protection (aside from your ludicrous nuke-phasing strawman).

Otherwise, you can argue that the base's security has been compromised, and that a commando has infiltrated it and placed a nuclear charge close to the room, sufficiently close that it would be considered a direct hit.

Of course, talking about a "hit" here is a bit funny considering that in such an operation, no nuke would have been launched.
You may not speak of a hit when you have not thrown, fired, shot or launched any projectile. Generally, for nuclear attacks, it strongly implies missiles, IRBMs, MRBMs or MIRVs.
It's, at the very least, not the most obvious meaning of the word.

There don't have to be many ways to attack the room more directly than hitting the outside of the entire facility. There only has to be one. For example, if the facilities have more than one room.
Yes, using the word 'hit' is awkward but not incomprehensible. For example, bombs can be considered to hit things (though this is normally when they are dropped), and nuclear explosions can also hit things. It has a relatable meaning.
On the other hand, claiming that 'direct' actually means 'indirect', or that 'room' means 'not just the room, but the whole facility' is completely nonsensical.

Even if it wasn't, it would make much difference.
Option 1: Would the nuke fail to penetrate the 300 meters, ALL the rooms would be safe.
Option 2: Would the nuke break through, the remained of the blast if there is any, the shockwave at first, and then the accelerated debris and gravity would much likely finish the complex in a pancake fashion. Mainly because if the ceiling of the upper rooms doesn't collapse, then you can consider that the 300 meters of concrete and steel have done their job, so that's back to option 1.

So basically you're saying:
"Even if the room survives the nuke, it won't survive the effects of the nuke. Therefore, it won't survive the nuke."
I hope you can see the problem with that.
Anyway, gravity isn't a problem. Unless the room was already collapsing when it was built, under the weight of the stuff that's already on top of it.

Ahem. That it was obvious sarcasm (especially since no species involved there could such a thing) doesn't make it less of a mockery of my position by an absurd strawman, like I even tried to pretend something so silly.

Yes, you did try to pretend something as silly. Unfortunately for your imaginary strawman, it wasn't the same thing, it was just similar in its silliness. Your genius-level English comprehension capabilities should have told you that.
And, please. I couldn't mock your position any better than you already do.

It is, unless you can prove that the UNSC have access to unobtainium, and then explain why they'd put hundreds of meters of dense stuff above the complex when the pirates and insurgents would have very hard times acquiring high grade military weapons, the epitome being nukes.

Yet, when I'm asking you to explain what are the proper conditions of that direct hit, like, what that room would really be about in your mind, how thick the walls should be, also what they should be made of, and where the nuke should be, oh the surprise! You... again... give your best shot at precisely avoiding providing any clear position on this case.

Pointing to a quote and repeating that there's no need for any further explanation in a much pedantic way is not a demonstration, safe in foolery.

It's fine to attack my interpretation, but failing to show how yours is superior or even makes sense is not.

And your "everyone" is pretty much composed of only two individuals: Wellis and SpartanElite.
(You may also want to read the first pages of this thread, and poke your head around, to see that this criticism is not exclusively mine.)

You're constantly claiming that there is a 'your interpretation' and a 'my interpretation'. Except what there actually is is a corruption of the quote's meaning (i.e. your 'interpretation'), and the literal meaning of the quote (i.e. my 'interpretation').
Anyway, you don't seem to understand why your line of argument is retarded. What you're trying to do is modify the quote itself to make it fit other evidence.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work, because the meaning of the quote taken in isolation is divorced from the ultimate validity of said quote in terms of all canon. Let me give you an example. Just say that you have a number from the ICS, and then you have a different quote that contradicts it. What you can't do is say "to reconcile this, we need to change the meaning of the ICS!" and then 'interpret' '200' as '10' because it 'fits better'.
What you should be doing is interpreting it correctly in isolation, and then trying to rationalise within those bounds, and throwing things out if that's impossible.
But instead, you seem to be content with claiming that 'direct' has to mean 'indirect' and that 'room' means 'facility' in order to make it fit your imaginary contradictions.

Your so-called 'request for clarification' is retarded. The quote doesn't have any information on 'how thick the walls should be'. Therefore it is irrelevant. The quote doesn't say 'what the room would really be about' (grammar?) either, so that's also irrelevant. Similarly, what the walls are made of are irrelevant. The only important thing in interpreting the quote is what it says itself, which is that a direct hit on the room is survivable. Then, the nuke should be placed directly outside the room, to fit with directly. And a reasonable example of that is in an adjacent room.
This is as if a quote said "The Eiffel tower can support its own weight" and you said that I needed to tell you what the foundations were made out of and how thick they were to interpret something with a plainly obvious meaning. And that's obviously retarded. I've already explained what the quote means, and squealing and crying about 'dodging' just makes you look desperate.

The outside portion of the room? What is that supposed to mean, when we're dealing with an underground complex? The side of the walls that point outwards?
Oh fine, they have survived. However, the stuff and people inside the room... I'm afraid they're gone now.

Or, the outside, as the surface of the walls/ceiling/floor that is in contact with the room's air?
That's it? Claiming that the walls wouldn't even crack if a 80 MT nuke was to be detonated against them?
Walls which would have no reason to be made of anything better than concrete and reinforced steel, since this was deemed enough as a protection against enemy fire?

Yes, what's outside the walls of the room. This usually occurs when there is an adjacent room - in this case, even you should understand that the wall has two obviously defined surfaces. This isn't difficult to understand.

And SE's was just something different, but not even better: an analogy about a tank, which as I said, is about the same if you pulled that room out of its underground context and placed it on a plain, and lobbed a 80 MT nuclear nuke at it, which relies on such a flawed premise that I don't even know where to start from in order to say how a failure this analogy is. In essence, it doesn't even give any idea about how thick the walls would be, nor what they would be made of, nor doesn't give any explanation as to why the UNSC would use unobtainium for the separation walls of its rooms, but decide to only use shitty concrete and a variant of steel for the main protection.

So you can't read, again? What he said was:
"While I side with hig's interpretation of the Reach quote (though I forget its context), the context of the other quote in FS about CASTLE REACH (the facility in question) makes it seem more like Hasley was referring to the entire facility."
And since we already know the other quote is irrelevant, the consequences are obvious.

And that's where we are. You, hiding between two absurd claims, and dodging any request for an intelligent and concise clarification.
With, in the background, the implication that walls would survive a direct 80 MT nuclear explosion, when the UNSC considered that 300 meters of dense protection would be absolutely necessary, and with that same UNSC preferring to use that super duper miracle material of yours for the walls of its rooms, instead of using it in the 300 meters thick lid meant to protect the whole complex.

Even several posts ago, I made an invitation for such a clarification, by saying something akin to "OK then let's admit I'm totally dumb." But even there, you couldn't keep it simple.

It's painfully clear why you don't want to state your opinion openly: it's retarded beyond salvation, and would expose you as a Haloïte wanker.

But don't be afraid, we got that from your very first post in this thread.

As final note, since you refused to state your opinion and preferred trolling around, I accept your concession. Thanks.

Yes, Point45, you can pretend that I conceded if that helps you sleep better at night. I don't mind, because your desperate escape tactics are still amusing.
You could make it even better, too, by backpedalling furiously back into the debate in an attempt to not lose the last word.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Let's make it clear. I really had hard times believing that one person could claim that the book pretended the UNSC had access to a material that is so tough that they use it for the walls between two rooms of an underground base, yet don't even use a layer of this magic material in the 300 meters thick shield, for which they obtusely decided to use good ol' concrete and reinforced steel instead.
But before that, let's just clear the first part of your post that deals with the penetrator warheads and so on. You have repeatedly been strawmaning my position and sprouting lies.
It's quite necessary to go through that, for the sake of correction and accuracy.
Now, since the arguments are all over the place, in no particular order, you'll excuse me for piecing the two parts together, for proper sorting.

After that, I'll give my final, concise opinion on the 80 MT nuke and the magic wall thing.

Oh and before you act stupid again, a claimed concession of the opponent does not equal exit of the thread, just that I merely consider that you failed and we don't agree.
This does not prevent me from commenting further.









First Part: Bunker busters, blasts and other shockwaves

Except we don't know if the tunnel is straight at all, so yes, a straight tunnel would do fine, if you could prove that it was straight.

It was hypothetical. I didn't treat this as absolute nor a fact at any time.

And you haven't proven that it is important at all. Also, you've almost managed a strawman fallacy of a strawman fallacy. I suppose you might consider that an achievement.

No, that's just you being lost in those absurd attempts to invent complicated logical errors and pretend I'm their author.
Well at this point you're literally getting lost in your own fantasy, I'm afraid, and you're reading way too much into my sentences.
From the beginning, I treated ALL aspects of a penetrator weapon. Some would be less effective than others. At the time I speculated on the penetrator weapon, I clearly said I wasn't sure of what the complex' layout was. I considered that the air blast of a nuclear weapon would be relevant in certain conditions. When you look at the effects of the solid shell, filled with 500 tonnes of TNT, did to a Navy warship when it exploded, and just with air blast, with no tunnel to concentrate and guide the blast whatsoever, it came obvious to me that a weapon that would have a yield 160,000 greater and a power really higher than that of TNT would clearly be nothing to scoff at if it managed to hit a sensible spot and have an access to the inside of the complex. I never pretended it would level the complex, but it may clearly affect the closest rooms, depending on the obstacles and the complex' layout in the region next to the entry points. And that, without considering the 80 megaton nuke's fireball.

Yes, there certainly is a need. Because if you could read, you'd know that I was talking about both sealed and unsealed doors.

And I, the one who brought the point first, only spoke of a seal, as something effective to stop the air blast.
An air blast is also relative to a shockwave.

You still fail to understand. I'm refuting your still-unsupported claim that the tunnel is significantly more effective at transferring a shockwave than the surrounding rock.

Fail to understand what exactly? That you're literally incapable of dropping the stupid argument because you truly need to have the last word, even when you're literally arguing against that strawman you pulled out of nowhere, since as you obviously missed it, I referred to two phenomena: the air blast, and the shockwave that travels through matter. Both behave very differently, and despite your repeated attempts, I never ever attempted to treat both as one unique magical shockwave. The tunnel just matters for the air shockwave, not the ground one.
It is actually very simple. You could have a powerful shockwave going through the solid metal walls of a tunnel and it could fail to even crack the metal to any relevant degree, and therefore fail to injure or kill anyone in it. The ground shockwave would clearly travel far away down the tunnel and beyond.
However, the powerful air blast, this, would be far more effective at breaking small stuff littering the corridor. It would be far more lethal, notably because of the killing shards it would carry, hitting anyone in the tunnel. Even the sheer over pressure of the close explosion would at the very least kill people if they were exposed to it, and that's pretty much all there was to my point.
Then, if there is a seal that block the air blast, it becomes moot, which also was my point. I didn't treat the air blast like some magic force that would hit a door and transmit a great deal of energy to the air volume behind that door.

And if this wasn't enough...

So basically you're saying:
"Even if the room survives the nuke, it won't survive the effects of the nuke. Therefore, it won't survive the nuke."
I hope you can see the problem with that.
Anyway, gravity isn't a problem. Unless the room was already collapsing when it was built, under the weight of the stuff that's already on top of it.

Huh? What an horrible attempt as masking your borked logic behind another ludicrous strawman. You really have a talent for that. It's unfortunate you don't use that skill for better purposes.
See, I did not dissociate the nuke's effects from the nuke. That's stupid, but that's just you. When you speak about a city that's leveled, do you separate the air blast from the destruction caused by the nuke, or do you say the nuke did it?
If you go with the first choice, you're beyond hope. Obviously I never claimed something so stupid, but never mind!

Eventually, what I could add is a middle option above, where the room is more or less destroyed, but the rest of the complex is not affected much, but it wouldn't change anything to the idea that I'm convinced that the menace comes from the surface, not from the next room.

Thus, we get to the second part...





Second Part: 80 megatons nuke, 300 meters thick shield and magic walls

Your claim basically is, that according to the book, the UNSC builds its rooms, and the walls between adjacent rooms, with super materials that can withstand a direct 80 megaton nuclear detonation.
As such, if there were two adjacent rooms, if a nuke detonated in the first, the second one would survive the explosion.

What you have utterly failed to do is show how this make sense, or is even feasible, or even fits with the rest of Halo's canon.

This came after your attempt at refuting the idea that there were more than 300 meters of materials which were just concrete and reinforced steel.
I had to go pick quotations from TFoR itself to show you that contrary to your claim, the facility where Hasley stood was not protected by at least two kilometers of all the materials listed, plus granite and titanium-A.
And to silence your accusations of cherry picking, denial and bad reading, I also proved that there had been more than one facility at Reach.
You did not reconsider your position, despite this evidence. A pity, because it was clear that a 80 MT nuke could clearly be a relevant threat to structure located only 300 meters under the surface.

And now, where are we?
Well let's see...

So you're claiming that the three-hundred-metres above the entire facility is designed to 'offer protection against any weapon the UNSC's current enemy could have' on the basis of that being one of many layers of defence mentioned? Feel free to prove this, and that this goes up to 80 megaton nukes, and that the room is necessarily inferiorly or equally built to the rest of the facility.

I can at least reasonably prove some of these points: it's the only layer of inert defense mentioned, as a solid shield. This is clearly not the setup described later by the same author, that comprises TA, EMP reducing stuff and else.
Nylund says 300 meters of concrete and reinforced steel, from the surface to the complex, and that is all.
Pretending the contrary is inventing stuff. I'm going with what the book describes.

As for proving that the room is inferiorly or equally built, it's not up to me to do it. I cannot prove that they use more than what is described for this part of the installation, at that time.
That is your burden.
If you do have evidence of better materials than concrete, r-steel and wallpaper, then be my guest.
Otherwise, we pretty much conclude that you concede those subpoints.

Then the "hit":

There don't have to be many ways to attack the room more directly than hitting the outside of the entire facility. There only has to be one. For example, if the facilities have more than one room.
Yes, using the word 'hit' is awkward but not incomprehensible. For example, bombs can be considered to hit things (though this is normally when they are dropped), and nuclear explosions can also hit things. It has a relatable meaning.
On the other hand, claiming that 'direct' actually means 'indirect', or that 'room' means 'not just the room, but the whole facility' is completely nonsensical.

I don't recall saying that the room Hasley was located in suddenly turned out to represent the entire complex.
And yes, I think a "hit" is better understood, in this scenario, as a weapon --fired from high altitude or orbit-- that strikes the surface, above all as it concludes the author's description of the surface to complex 300 meters thick shield, rather than understanding a hit as a bomb exploding next door, especially considering the security setup of this place, since the orbital hit is far more likely to occur than a commando intrusion.

As for the "teleported nuke" claim, it's really unfortunate, then, that your post is the proof that you came with that silly nuke teleportation strawman/mockery, while the part you quoted from me only referred to the hypervelocity impact of a buster warhead, something rather down to earth.

You're constantly claiming that there is a 'your interpretation' and a 'my interpretation'. Except what there actually is is a corruption of the quote's meaning (i.e. your 'interpretation'), and the literal meaning of the quote (i.e. my 'interpretation').
Anyway, you don't seem to understand why your line of argument is retarded. What you're trying to do is modify the quote itself to make it fit other evidence.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work, because the meaning of the quote taken in isolation is divorced from the ultimate validity of said quote in terms of all canon. Let me give you an example. Just say that you have a number from the ICS, and then you have a different quote that contradicts it. What you can't do is say "to reconcile this, we need to change the meaning of the ICS!" and then 'interpret' '200' as '10' because it 'fits better'.

Oh yes, talking about corruption, perhaps you could reconsider your corrupted analogy.
I'm not basing my interpretation upon a fact given from some other source; contrary to you, who as proved above, implies that there is more than 300 meters of concrete and r-steel.

I'm merely looking at the fact that I don't see any logic in pretending that the 300 meters thick shield would be made of material infinitely poorer than the magic stuff that the walls are made of.
It's stupid. You want to block your enemy's fire as soon as possible, not let its weapons threaten the complex and literally knock on the door of each room, and count on the walls to stop a firepower that managed to get through 300 meters of concrete and reinforced steel!

But yes, if I were to try to compare TFOR's extract to other excerpts, I could ask you where do we get evidence that rooms in other ground bases are built with a couple meters of material that can withstand a 80 MT nuclear charge... unless of course you want to pretend that the walls between two rooms and many dozens of meters thick and composed of dense alloys. But then again, I'd ask you why use it for the walls, and not the shield above the whole complex.

Something tells me that we'd probably find far more cases of UNSC walls and reinforced doors blown up with HE charges, than them requiring 80 megatons charges to go down.
And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be taking too many risks in thinking that we may also find some references about nuclear charges used to destroy entire UNSC structures effectively, either placed in or out.

You said that what I "should be doing is interpreting [the quote] correctly in isolation, and then trying to rationalize within those bounds, and throwing things out if that's impossible."
Your methodology of isolation is absurd. I'm taking the paragraph as a whole, with the context. You, on the contrary, shred it to confetti only to pick the only part that suits you.

The quote says the room would survive a direct hit, but it was never precised where this direct hit would occur. "A direct hit [on the surface]" is more than implied considering that the description of the 300 meters thick shield exacly precedes the nuclear warhead statement.

Then, on the list of awkward analogies, we have this one:

This is as if a quote said "The Eiffel tower can support its own weight" and you said that I needed to tell you what the foundations were made out of and how thick they were to interpret something with a plainly obvious meaning. And that's obviously retarded. I've already explained what the quote means, and squealing and crying about 'dodging' just makes you look desperate.

"The Eiffel tower can support its own weight" is not even remotely close to the statement made by the book. That's pretending the book says the room didn't collapse after it was finished being built. Well, duh. That's rather expected, don't you think?
What the book actually says is more along the lines of "the Eiffel tower is a 324 meters high structure made of 10,000 tonnes of steel, and its restaurant level (where Dr. Hasley often eats) can withstand an extremely powerful direct lightning strike", while we all know that the lightning will always hit the top of the tower. And even there, the analogy is not perfect, but stills better than what you came with.

I really had hard times to believe your position, but now there's really no doubt about it anymore.
There's perhaps you could still do, though.

Are you capable of proving the existence of such formidable building materials so it would totally refute my point of view on this?

Pick any UNSC building, surface or underground bases, other bunkers, and show me that it can withstand anything, that bullets don't dent it, than it can withstand a car or helicopter crashing into it, or even a plane or chemical missile.
That is, after all, pretty much required by your side, considering how you vehemently defend your position.

So you can't read, again? What he said was:
"While I side with hig's interpretation of the Reach quote (though I forget its context), the context of the other quote in FS about CASTLE REACH (the facility in question) makes it seem more like Hasley was referring to the entire facility."
And since we already know the other quote is irrelevant, the consequences are obvious.

Oh yes, good thing he could take the decision to side with you while he openly stated he didn't know the context.
Although I admit I forgot he said that, that's obviously doesn't stand up as good support.
You know, wellis, SE, that didn't really sound like "everyone" either.

And how strong is TA supposed to be? After all, it takes roughly 50 GJ of energy to vaporize one cubic meter of titanium. TA is one of the UNSC's best materials, if not THE best one. Resisting the nuclear blast of a 80 megatons nuke detonating inside a room, in an underground complex, would require your walls' and door's material to be seriously tolerant regarding heat.
See, this is why your position makes zero fucking sense. Unless TA is like million times better than titanium, but then against you have to question how that TA could still be considered a cousin of titanium at all. That's beyond alchemy.

[Mith]

Originally Posted by Buugipopuu

A bigger concern with these calcs is how the surface was only "glowing red hot" in places. Given the calced power input in the OP, if even 5% of that is reradiated into space, which assumes ludicrously efficient energy transfer, the equilibrium temperature is well over 6,000K, putting its thermal emissions in the blue-violet part of the spectrum. If they really were dumping that much power into the planet, most of it should be white hot after an hour. It would only take 3% of the input power to be reradiated for it to have the same surface emissivity as the Sun. There wouldn't be "glassy smooth fields and forests" because the entire surface of the planet would be glowing like a star. The mere presence of intact surface features, even lakes of glass (You get lakes of glass at a positively chilly 1500K) implies much lower energy flux than those boiling calcs.

Add that in with the images of planets that have been bombarded by the Covenant in the games have giant shapes drawn on them that are--you guessed it; red-orange-yellow. Right in that ballpark.