Why are there no nuclear weapons in Star Wars?

Congradulations! You have become pitifully amusing! Give yourself a parade! Woooooohoooooo! The info is easy enough to find. You see, we can go on an post links and quotes an what not, but we are not here at anyone's beck and call. I am not here to be ordered about with a rather long winded and whiny "PPOR". If you're too lazy to look it up then don't demand that we hand it all to you. At best we'll just point an laugh.

What's also really funny here is that just a few posts up I listed a few places you can find the information. But oh! I din't link them for you. Well boo hoo.

 

Good to know that you are capable of debating without resorting to insults or mockery...oh wait. You aren't capable of that, are you? You are the one stating specifically that Star Destroyer turbolasers are more powerful, yet, refuse to provide sources that back it up. It is not up to me to disprove you, it is up to you to prove your own position. Since you refuse to, I will refute your lack of evidence quite resoundly. But, if you want to [...,] fine. Here is what I found, using the "Evidence" you suggested.

http://theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#weaponry
Star Destroyer shields are not powerful enough to withstand asteroids...If they cannot withstand impacting with asteroids, (TESB) they cannot withstand a thermonuclear detonation either. It does state that the shields can withstand a multi-megaton impact...but, how many is multi? Can it survive one? Can it survive 5 multi-megaton impacts in a short time? Doesn't say. Does multi mean 10 megatons? Does it mean 200 megatons? Our multistage nukes are capable of megaton damage. However, the greatest flaw in the shield strength argument is that if turbolasers from capital ships could pack that kind of a punch, one or two shots should be enough to overwhelm any ship's shielding, and based on the visual evidence within the movies, that is clearly not the case. Further, in TESB, as the Falcon is skimming across the hull of the Avenger, stray shots hit sections of the hull...if the turbolasers were so blasted strong, where is the damage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
On October 31st, 1961, the USSR tested a 50,000 kiloton bomb, known as Tsar Bomba. 50,000 kilotons is 50 Megatons. And that was in 1961. If you had a few such bombs, you could easily overwhelm any capital ship's shielding. It is also perfectly reasonable to expect that a galaxy that technologically advanced could design nuclear weapons that dwarf our own nuclear weapons in terms of yield. We have only been doing it for what, 65-70 years? Our nuclear technology would be in its absolute infancy compared to what theirs would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
In fact, Tsar Bomba was originally designed to yield a 100,000kt (100 megaton) explosion. They intentionally reduced it by half, to limit fallout. But, the technology was there to produce 100mt. Also, we don't have to rely just on the Soviet's word for it. The US estimated the actual yield was 57mt, more than the Soviets designed it for. That single detonation produced a shockwave throughout the Earth's core that registered between 5 and 5.25 on the Richter scale. ONE detonation equaled a level 5 earthquake, and that was the half-powered version. But, it demonstrates that even 46 years ago, we had the technology to create a 100mt yield nuclear device. Even if Star Wars could only match that, it would be more than enough to wipe out a SSD, I would state that placed inside the core of a Death Star, it would be enough to completely destroy that too. Even if segments of a Death Star weren't completely annihilated, the Death Star would be so damaged from a 100mt detonation(assuming it was even still recognizable as a Death Star) it would never be operational again.

Star Destroyers can reduce entire worlds to slag, its true. But so can nukes. But, how many shots would have to be fired to devastate the entire surface of a world? Would the equivalent number of nukes do the same job? Less?

http://stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html
The atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was rated at 15 kilotons. This translates to about 63 terajoules. Using my conservative estimate for TL bolts (ignoring vaporisation), a middle-sized TL bolt has about 30 TJ of energy. Therefore, a TL bolt has about half the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

A bomb releases its energy in all directions, so an object immediately next to an exploding bomb won't absorb any more than half of the energy, probably much less. A TL bolt directs essentially all of it's energy to a target, therefore, a TL bolt is at least as intense as the blast from an atom bo

 

Game, Set, and Match.

The above post should conclude this thread.

 

I think nuclear weapons would go against the fantasy feel of the story.

Interestingly enough, nuclear weapons and radiation are mentioned in the earlier drafts of Star Wars. Here one can see the clear connection of the Death Star = the A-Bomb which someone mentioned earlier. Here's the relevant passage:

HAN
We ARE there...Ogana Major has been destroyed...

LUKE
What! What are you saying?

Luke moves close and begins to search the viewing monitors.

HAN
What's left of it is contaminated. That's it there...look at those radiation read-outs!...and the blockade is gone. Now what's going on?

Luke sits down in a state of shock. He stares blankly at the monitor read-outs. Han is very angry at this turn of events.

MONTROSS
I don't care how large the Imperial fleet has become, it couldn't have done this. Half the planet is torn away. It would have taken a thousand ships with a lot more fire power than I've ever seen...very fascinating.

 

All the nuclear weapons are hidden in Mount Tantiss.

 

Now, if you want to insist on the strength of turbolasers and shields of capital ships, rather than keep your mocking tone, I suggest you actually back up what you say.

Read the Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections: Attack of the Clones. 200 gigatons per shot on an Acclamator's turbolaser. Proof enough?

 

Would that be the same Incredible Cross Sections book that claims that Slave 1's lasers were 600 megatons? 40,000 times greater than the bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Frankly, I find Saxton's calculations...flawed, and greatly, greatly, exaggerated. If we go by information in the book, when Boba Fett fires Slave 1's lasers on the landing platform on Kamino, with that kind of energy, he would have fried Obi-Wan, Jango, and not only evaporated the entire city, but caused a global environmental crisis, by the superheat evaporating the water around the city, killing all of the aquatic life, creating supersteam, deadly to anyone outside, etc. Yet, this doesn't happen. We would also have seen every asteroid that Jango hits while pursuing Obi-Wan after fleeing Kamino completely evaporate. In fact, any turbolaser that strong would be useless. The energy produced would make it absolutely impossible for Slave 1 to escape. If Slave 1 laser's could fire 600 megaton blasts, it would be evaporated by the heat released the first time its fired. CLEARLY, the calculations used are faulty. They simply cannot be accurate. If he can get Slave 1's laser ratings so wrong, he could also get the Acclamator's ratings wrong. Do you understand exactly how powerful a single blast 200 gigatons strong would actually be? If the Acclamator was actually as strong as that book claims, the Death Star is completely redundant. A few 200 gigaton blasts would completely destroy the entire surface area of an Earth sized planet. The A-bombs dropped over Japan were only 15 KILOTONs. 200 Gigatons would be more than 13 million times as strong. (do the math, 200,000,000,000/15,000, you get 13,333,333.33 repeating)

A SINGLE shot from the Acclamator, if we accept that book's calculations, would completely wipe out any civilizations on planets anyway. You wouldn't need the Death Star. Since that is clearly not the case, the book MUST be flat out wrong.

So, in answer to your question, yes. It is proof enough. Proof enough that the author of the book has no idea what he is talking about. His numbers directly contradict visual evidence within the films, and, quite frankly, make absolutely no sense.

I suggest perhaps, that the author is not using the same terminology. For nuclear weapons, the base is the explosive energy released by a stick of dynamite, TNT. The 15kt A-Bomb was 15,000 times more powerful than a stick of dynamite. That's its reference point. That is the base unit. Perhaps Saxton is referring to the energy released by a kitchen match as his base unit. That is the only way his numbers make any sense.

 

Would that be the same Incredible Cross Sections book that claims that Slave 1's lasers were 600 megatons? 40,000 times greater than the bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Frankly, I find Saxton's calculations...flawed, and greatly, greatly, exaggerated. If we go by information in the book, when Boba Fett fires Slave 1's lasers on the landing platform on Kamino, with that kind of energy, he would have fried Obi-Wan, Jango, and not only evaporated the entire city, but caused a global environmental crisis, by the superheat evaporating the water around the city, killing all of the aquatic life, creating supersteam, deadly to anyone outside, etc. Yet, this doesn't happen.

Boba fired the blasters, not the main lasers, at Obi-Wan.

We would also have seen every asteroid that Jango hits while pursuing Obi-Wan after fleeing Kamino completely evaporate. In fact, any turbolaser that strong would be useless. The energy produced would make it absolutely impossible for Slave 1 to escape. If Slave 1 laser's could fire 600 megaton blasts, it would be evaporated by the heat released the first time its fired. CLEARLY, the calculations used are faulty.

You're missing the point. The devastation nuclear bombs cause are because of the chemical reaction caused by the detonation and using the atmosphere itself, oxygen specifically, to cause further damage. Direct energy transfer negates that possibility. You're thinking the energy caused by the lasers will have the same effect as nuclear detonations, you shouldn't.

They simply cannot be accurate. If he can get Slave 1's laser ratings so wrong, he could also get the Acclamator's ratings wrong. Do you understand exactly how powerful a single blast 200 gigatons strong would actually be? If the Acclamator was actually as strong as that book claims, the Death Star is completely redundant. A few 200 gigaton blasts would completely destroy the entire surface area of an Earth sized planet. The A-bombs dropped over Japan were only 15 KILOTONs. 200 Gigatons would be more than 13 million times as strong. (do the math, 200,000,000,000/15,000, you get 13,333,333.33 repeating)

Again, you're thinking a laser bolt has the same explosive effect as a nuclear bomb. This is a flawed way of thinking. Hurricanes have been calculated to produce energy equivalent to gigatons and they haven't caused the entire surface area of an Earth sized planet to be destroyed.

Incidentally, the 200 gigaton level is there because Acclamators can render a world uninhabitable.

A SINGLE shot from the Acclamator, if we accept that book's calculations, would completely wipe out any civilizations on planets anyway. You wouldn't need the Death Star. Since that is clearly not the case, the book MUST be flat out wrong.

As I've already pointed out, lasers don't have the chemical explosion effect nuclear weapons produce.

So, in answer to your question, yes. It is proof enough. Proof enough that the author of the book has no idea what he is talking about. His numbers directly contradict visual evidence within the films, and, quite frankly, make absolutely no sense.

Dr. Saxton is probably the most qualified person Lucasfilm has ever hired to do the numbers relating to Star Wars weapons and technology. The fact he has a phd in theoretical astrophysics makes it clear that it isn't he who has no idea what he's talking about.

Also, if you ask around you'll find 200 gigatons is possibly the most conservative estimate you'll find for turbolasers' maximum firepower.

I suggest perhaps, that the author is not using the same terminology. For nuclear weapons, the base is the explosive energy released by a stick of dynamite, TNT. The 15kt A-Bomb was 15,000 times more powerful than a stick of dynamite. That's its reference point. That is the base unit. Perhaps Saxton is referring to the energy released by a kitchen match as his base unit. That is the only way his numbers make any sense.

I'd always assumed 200 gigatons wasn't identical to 200 gigatons worth

 

Follow up to my last message, visual evidence:

If we accept the information in the Incredible Cross Sections, we have to believe that this:
[image=http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s96/Davi323/ATTACK_OF_THE_CLONES_1hr01min24secc.jpg]
Is 40,000 times stronger, and this:
[image=http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s96/Davi323/ROTSohr02min33secch3.jpg]
is over 13 million times stronger than this:
[image=http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s96/Davi323/nagasaki.jpg]
An actual image of the A-bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, rated at 15 kilotons. Sorry. That is just beyond the realm of believability.

Earth's total surface area is around 510 million square kilometers.

http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_w14.html
In Nagasaki, every building within 2 kilometers of detonation was completely and utterly destroyed. If one circa 1945 A-Bomb can completely wipe out everything within 2 square kilometers, since the damage is unidirectional, that means the total surface area completely destroyed around the detonation would be around 12.5 square kilometers.
(http://www.csgnetwork.com/circlecalc.html input 2 as radius)

If one A-bomb can completely devastate 12.5 square kilometers (this doesn't even take into account collateral damage), it would take 40 million of them to completely cover the entire surface area of Earth. However, since the book claims the Acclamator's turbo lasers are good for 200 gigatons, 13.3 million times as strong as the A-Bomb, it would only take 3 shots to do the same. If you have a ship in orbit that can completely destroy the entire surface of a planet the size of Earth in 3 shots, you don't need a Death Star, period. The Acclamator has 12 such turrets. It would only require a single volley, firing only 3 of the 12 available turrets, to destroy the entire surface of an Earth size planet. If they were that strong, why bother with a Death Star at all? You have an entire navy of ships that can wipe out the populations of planets by themselves...

The only way the Acclamator's turrets could possibly generate 200 gigatons of energy is if we are not using the same base units in our descriptions. If the gigatons referred to in ICS are in fact, the equivalent of how we measure nuclear detonations, namely energy released by a single stick of dynamite, the numbers are impossibly high. However, if the ICS uses a different base unit of measurement, those numbers can mean anything you want them to, and there is no discrepency. But, if it refers to same unit, I call total bull**** on the author.

If, as you say, he is referring to watts, rather than the equivalent of TNT, then we have no real dispute. My disbelief as to the power of turbolasers is based on their measurements being the same as ours. If it is expressed in wattage, then a 200 gigaton rated turbolaser wouldn't do the same amount of total damage as a 200 gigaton rated nuclear weapon would do. A 200 gigaton nuclear explosion, 13 million times stronger than the A-Bombs dropped on Japan, would do significantly more total damage than a single 200 gigaton turbolaser blast, because our terms of measurement, though named the same, do not refer to the same base units. I can live with that explanation. If he comes out and says that he really meant the same units as a nuclear device, we have issues though.

 

Again, the devastation caused by nuclear weapons is caused by a chemical reaction and subsequent explosion, which is not how turbolasers work.

Think of turbolasers as bolts of lightning. They cause damage, sure, but they don't wipe out an entire area with a mushroom cloud.

 

However, wouldn't you also need the capability to wipe out an entire area with a mushroom cloud? If turbolasers are incredibly potent, but only in a very limited amount of space (using your lightning example, turbolasers are only powerful at the exact spot of impact) while a nuclear detonation causes far broader damage, if you are the Empire, why waste turbolaser shots to wipe out cities, when a single nuke would accomplish the same task? I guess, if I was interested in doing the most damage possible to the largest amount of area, without concern about the environment or survivors, (such as the Empire might) nuclear weapons would be a far better solution. The Rebels were trying to completely blow up the Death Star, without any regard to survivors or environmental impact. They had the thermal exhaust port option, but if that didn't work, they had other options. You pick the right tool for the job. Find an old freighter, load it up with a high yield nuclear device, put it on autopilot, let the Death Star bring it in with their tractors, as they did with the Falcon, detonate. Problem solved. The smuggling compartments completely hid Han, Chewie, Luke, etc from their scanners, if those compartments are sensor-proof, you could put the nuclear device in there, so they wouldn't detect it.

Basically, sometimes in a war, a rifle is the best choice of weapon, and sometimes a grenade is, and you are better off having both at your disposal. If turbolasers are essentially high powered controllable lighting strikes, they can do a huge amount of damage, but to a very limited area. Sometimes that is what you need. Surgical precision. But, when you are just out to wreck havoc, you aren't interested so much in precision as you are total damage capacity.

 

Perhaps, but I shouldn't think nuclear weapons would be needed if a Base Delta Zero with turbolasers can cause the amount of damage shown in the image below.

[image=http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/c/c1/BaseDeltaZero.jpg]

 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh I normally balk at accepting visual evidence based on comic book panels...Comic book artistry tends to be exaggerated anyway, and how big the explosion is is largely dependent on the drawing style of the artist...It may be an accurate depiction, or it could just be artistic liberty. Either way, I believe versatility in weaponry is better than a lack of versatility, and nuclear weaponry would be an effective form.

 

i always assumed that a thermal detonators and proton torpedoes created a small nuclear blast (if one can be small.)


maybe the tech of the GFFA is so advanced that they can make small, contained, fallout free, nuclear explosions.

 

As I understand it, thermal detonators (and the seismic charges Jango detonates in the Geonosis asteroid field) utilise a material known as baradium. I'm assuming it's their version of uranium, but probably far more effective.

 

I think it is safe to assume that no one has tried it. If so Wrinkles wouldn't need the Death Star to blow up a planet. He'd do it mysteriously with a 3000 megaton thermonuclear bomb.

 

yeah lets go with the truth of :

these things should be measured in Watts not megatons - its a non-measure. A transcription of power - what power is in a 50 kiloton explosion, whats the power in a 100 kiloton explosion. Only if the power output is in the 2:1 ratio can we say a 100 kiloton explosion is twice as powerful as a 50 kiloton one. I havent looked into it though..... 200 gigatons as a power rating is just spouting by someone creating their own physics!! Its nonsense!..


As for PhD's mentioned earlier - I have one. Not hard to get !!!

 

Actually nuclear weapons are mentioned and used at least once in the EU. It was in one of the New Jedi Order novels, I think it was Onslaught. Nom Anor and some of his Peace Brigade allias rigged a shuttle with a nuke and sent it off to land in the hanger bay of a Mon Cal cruised. According to the book, it only damaged the ship and put the hanger out of comission. It has been a while since I read the book, but this stood out in my mind because I have often wondered about the nuke issue myself.

 

I'm pretty sure nukes were also mentioned in one of the late-70s Han Solo novels. The gist was that the people of a particular planet were so primitive that they still used nuclear weapons. So I would guess they're not used because they are regarded as ancient technology.

 

Actually as I recall the Mando's used nuclear weapons in the nights of anger arc

 

This is an interesting image for discussing the strength of the Executor's shields:


[image=http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/given/rb/isdcrash.jpg]


But yeah; given that they've had faster-than-light travel and trans-galactic government of one sort or another for 25,000 years (keep in mind that there's only been recognizable human beings on this planet for 35,000 or so) I'd say it's safe to say that modern-day earth technology, including nuclear weapons, is primitive in comparison to say the least.

A good measure is starcraft. Currently, only highly trained astro/cosmonauts from various countries and a few lucky civilians have gone into space, and manned space missions are hardly common, and take months to prepare. In the SW galaxy, going into space and coming back is the equivalent of driving your car across town.

Something to take into account with the Death Star: Palpatine banked heavily on scaring the bejesus out of people. Thousands of mile-long warships, a Sith Apprentice reconstructed to look as terrifying as possible...the Death Star, hell, fear is in its very name. Sure, you could do a planet with a giant nuclear weapon or a bunch of them. But the Death Star, well, it'll do the job with a single shot and is invulnerable to attack. (at least, it was until someone figured out the engineering flaws. Darm Rebels! ) Palpatine's entire government operated on keeping people to scared to fight back; the Death Star is an obvious outgrowth of that.

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that nuclear weapons would be a technical advancement...my argument was that it's effective. Even primitive weaponry can kill you. I can kill you with a rock, the most primitive weapon I can think of that humans would have used, even though we have much more "advanced" methods. Splitting the atom might be technology that is tens of thousands of years old in the GFFA...but, just because its ancient to them, doesn't mean it isn't effective anymore.

The Death Star was designed to repel attacks from the outside. However, as ANH demonstrates, its not hard to get past their shields. All you have to do is fly a small freighter around it...they will tractor you in, allowing your ship to go past the shields, and into the Death Star itself. A ship like the Falcon, something that the Empire would tractor in, would make a good trojan horse. Have a nuclear device in the scanproof storage compartment. The nuke is inside the Death Star. Its like a firecracker. Hold the firecracker on your palm, it goes off, you probably have a few burns, maybe some missing skin. Close your fist around it however, (the DS shields) and you are lucky if you only have a few fingers blown off. The Shield would contain the nuclear detonation into a confined space, which would cause the explosion to be even more powerful, since the energy wouldn't be able to escape. The only direction it could go is inside. You don't have to completely blow up the entire Death Star to make it non-functional as a superweapon. You just have to blow up a few key systems, and you don't need anything elegant to do that. You just need a high yield explosive device, which a nuke would count as, primitive as it may be, and a way to get that device inside the Death Star's shields, which a small, unmanned freighter being tractored in could accomplish. BOOOOOOOOM. Death Star is disabled from the inside out.

 

Yes, primitive weapons are still effective. Certainly explains why the military forces around the world are jumping on the "rock and stick" bandwagon.

Military forces don't stick with what worked well if there is something new and better to replace it with. Take, just for example, that sixty years ago we were carpet-bombing entire countries into the ground to destroy a target. No modern air force does things like that any more- partly because of political necessity, partly because modern technology allows you not to have to do that-you can get more bang for a buck.

Now, if you're the Empire, which we know goes for the cheapest-but-most-effective weapon every time, which is cheaper-thousands of physical weapons (nuclear bombs) or weapons that simply require energy to work and will only 'run dry' when the reactor goes down, ie when the ship carrying them is destroyed(turbolasers?) Not to mention that the space requirements for a turbolaser system are on the small side-they take up powerlines running from the reactor to turrets, and if you miss, it's no big deal-the things don't seem to maintain coherency for much beyond a missed target. Also, with the space savings involved you can have squadrons of TIE fighters, around 10,000 stormtroopers and all their equipment.

Put simply, turbolasers don't just offer a destructive enhancement over nukes (which they do, as we see in the Thrawn trilogy; Thrawn calls down fire from his SD bare kilometers away from where he is standing, and isn't harmed in the least, which wouldn't be the case with a few atomic bombs going off at that range) they offer other advantages as well.

 

I am looking at this more from a rebel point of view, where they wouldn't have nearly as many turbolasers to throw at the Empire. They would be forced to resort to alternative methods...and, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Ewoks fight the Empire with sticks and rocks? They used what was available. Provided the trench run failed, they had other methods to disable the Death Star, thats what I am saying. In this case, a nuclear device, stored aboard an abandoned small freighter, could be used as an effective trojan horse. A thermonuclear explosion, contained within the Death Star, would wreak havoc. The metal cannot be as strong as some would suggest, cannot be that impervious to weaponry, otherwise it would be impossible to fabricate. The interior of the Death Star IS vulnerable. It would have to be. When the Millenium Falcon entered the Alderaan system, the Death Star immediately applied a tractor beam to it. They couldn't detect at that time, that the Falcon had any crew aboard, as the conversations inside the hangar bay confirm. They were not able to pierce the smuggling compartments with their scans. So, if the Empire tractors ships in, presumably to question people, etc, you could put a nuclear device inside a scan-shielded compartment, and detonate it after the ship lands in the landing bay.

Look, sometimes you have to pick the best weapon for the job. Some jobs, you want a bazooka, some jobs you want something more subtle. It is reasonable to assume that the Death Star had exterior shields strong enough to repel any conventional capital ship attack. However, what if you could get an enormous amount of firepower inside those shields? I chose my trojan horse analogy carefully. A few Greek soldiers were able to do what the entire Greek army could not...get past the Trojan defenses. The Death Star could have easily destroyed the Millennium Falcon once it had it in its tractor beam...in the same way the Trojans could have simply not allowed the horse through its gates. But, both the Trojans and the Empire didn't perceive the threat, and allowed them through its wall of defense. With the Trojans, it is quite literally, a wall...with the Death Star, it is its shielding. Once you get past that though, you can do a significant amount of damage, without spending a huge amount of resources. The Greek army could not have done the same job that the few