what would a flashpack do?
- Thread starter $tormin
- Start date
Originally posted by mpanty
Well that sounds like a cool "physical" explanation, AzraeL...
Nevertheless, would that actually be "possible" (assuming we can get to those temperatures...)?
Umm ... would what be possible?
Igniting all the oxygen and leaving the people alive (for a brief while)? No. The whole point of 'burning' is that something (e.g. the people) combine with the air.
If you removed the oxygen and heated us, we would 'boil' rather then burn. If given enough heat or enough time, all the water in our bodies would evaporate, which I imagine would be relatively fatal. (Note that the human body CAN survive intense temperatures for short periods of time).
Getting people (or anything) to burn? Of course. That's what you do when you apply a match to something - you heat it up enough for the oxidization reaction to start. The reaction then generates heat of its own. All the flashpak has to do is to raise the general temperature to a point at which people combust. I don't know what temperature people burn at, but they seem to go alright on wood fires. (Admittedly, the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of an entire ship to this level is enormous, but then, noone has ever accused Wing Commander of having accurate physics
)(To continue the physics lesson, if the rate at which the process generates heat is greater then the rate at which object dissipates heat then the object will continue to burn. When you hose water on a fire, you are cooling the object (water vaporizes at 100 degrees Celcius, a process which consumes heat energy). When the heat of the object is less than the heat required to oxidize the material, the process stops.)
It is technically possible that the flashpak could 'fail' in that it does not provide enough energy to get the people to combust (and continue combusting). From memory (not necessarily experience) humans to not combust particularly well on their own. Our bodies contain a little too much water for that. The flashpak could leave some badly scalded people alive. But my question is (and always has been) how is this more inhumane then being on the outer-edge of a torpedo blast and holding your guts in your hands while you slowly bleed to death?
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
After reading this entire thread...I have determined that it is best to do so in small portians. Doing otherwise can be hazardous to your sanity.
Oh well...still feel oblidged to throw my two bucks in...
I find it intersting that most of the later comments (don't even get me started on the earlier ones...) concern themselves with the moral implications of weapons. This is kind of like saying "I give you a choice, you can be gutted or decapitated!". I'm not covering that, though; this has already been beaten to death.
But if Confed was thrown to the wall by an enemy - say, the Nephilem- and their scientists simultaniously developed an ew super-weapon GUARENTEED effective, but which killed their enemies in the most horrific and destructive way possible...which would it be? Certain annihilation or rescue by immorality?
Let's not forget that Confed Black Ops developed the Temblor Bomb (not to mention the Behemoth), which Blair used to destroy an entire planet, many of them civilians, undoubtebly. This same race tortured and maimed many of us, yes - but does such retaliation make it right? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth - or, in this case, head for arms and legs?
Plus, Ops created the GE program, from which sprung Seether and the Black Lance. Which gets me back to my earlier question. In dire circumstances, is it moral to use immoral weapons? We may kill our enemies, maybe, but is it worth it to become them? Kinda like the "Admiral" ending of WingIV...
I think it's thought-provoking, and not a little scary.
Oh well...still feel oblidged to throw my two bucks in...
I find it intersting that most of the later comments (don't even get me started on the earlier ones...) concern themselves with the moral implications of weapons. This is kind of like saying "I give you a choice, you can be gutted or decapitated!". I'm not covering that, though; this has already been beaten to death.
But if Confed was thrown to the wall by an enemy - say, the Nephilem- and their scientists simultaniously developed an ew super-weapon GUARENTEED effective, but which killed their enemies in the most horrific and destructive way possible...which would it be? Certain annihilation or rescue by immorality?
Let's not forget that Confed Black Ops developed the Temblor Bomb (not to mention the Behemoth), which Blair used to destroy an entire planet, many of them civilians, undoubtebly. This same race tortured and maimed many of us, yes - but does such retaliation make it right? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth - or, in this case, head for arms and legs?
Plus, Ops created the GE program, from which sprung Seether and the Black Lance. Which gets me back to my earlier question. In dire circumstances, is it moral to use immoral weapons? We may kill our enemies, maybe, but is it worth it to become them? Kinda like the "Admiral" ending of WingIV...
I think it's thought-provoking, and not a little scary.
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
You hear much the same debate for the use of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.
On one hand, was it really necessary to use such a horrific weapon, which killed or maimed so many people (approximately a quarter of a million all told), many of them civillians?
On the other hand, those same civillians were subject to standard bombing, which was no picnic either. And the atomic bombs removed the necessity for an invasion of Japan (which itself would have cost an estimated 6 MILLION lives, 5 million Japanese).
One could go mad trying to argue one way or the other conclusively.
On one hand, was it really necessary to use such a horrific weapon, which killed or maimed so many people (approximately a quarter of a million all told), many of them civillians?
On the other hand, those same civillians were subject to standard bombing, which was no picnic either. And the atomic bombs removed the necessity for an invasion of Japan (which itself would have cost an estimated 6 MILLION lives, 5 million Japanese).
One could go mad trying to argue one way or the other conclusively.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
This whole discussion is just silly .
Torpedoes designed against "military targets" while flashpaks "kill indiscriminately"? They're both just weapons, designed to kill ships. Their purpose is identical. When the torpedo was designed, it was not a weapon to *only* kill soldiers, and when the BL designed the Flashpak, they weren't thinking of a weapon that would *only* kill innocent civilians. In both cases, the designers were simply thinking about how to design an *effective weapon* - the targets was not something they considered.
Blair was horrified by the Flashpak, of course, because naturally he thought about what it would feel like to die with that weapon - but the simple fact is, it's no different to dying due to a torpedo hit (except perhaps quicker, and therefore less painful) - it's just that Blair never considered how the latter might feel.
At the end of the day, there is only one (though perfectly adequate) valid argument against the Flashpak - it was designed by Space Nazis. Simple as that. Had the Flashpak been designed by ordinary Confed employees, it would undoubtedly still be in stock, to be used against lighter ships. But it was designed by the Black Lance, and so using it would be just plain wrong (similarly, Americans lost the space race because they decided to build a rocket from scratch, rather than use a V2-based rocket).
.Torpedoes designed against "military targets" while flashpaks "kill indiscriminately"? They're both just weapons, designed to kill ships. Their purpose is identical. When the torpedo was designed, it was not a weapon to *only* kill soldiers, and when the BL designed the Flashpak, they weren't thinking of a weapon that would *only* kill innocent civilians. In both cases, the designers were simply thinking about how to design an *effective weapon* - the targets was not something they considered.
Blair was horrified by the Flashpak, of course, because naturally he thought about what it would feel like to die with that weapon - but the simple fact is, it's no different to dying due to a torpedo hit (except perhaps quicker, and therefore less painful) - it's just that Blair never considered how the latter might feel.
At the end of the day, there is only one (though perfectly adequate) valid argument against the Flashpak - it was designed by Space Nazis. Simple as that. Had the Flashpak been designed by ordinary Confed employees, it would undoubtedly still be in stock, to be used against lighter ships. But it was designed by the Black Lance, and so using it would be just plain wrong (similarly, Americans lost the space race because they decided to build a rocket from scratch, rather than use a V2-based rocket).
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Erm, no -- the torpedo is a weapon that can be used *only* against ships and starbases... the flashpak is a weapon that can be used against any civilian target.
Excuse my ignorance but how is it a that torpedo can't be used against civilian targets? I would assume that one could fire on civilian ship with a torp, unless there's some sort blocking mechanism that would only allow you to acquire military targets.
Remember the Lusitania!
[Edited by Soma on 04-23-2001 at 11:48]
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Civilian ships, which aren't particularly shielded or armored (according to Fleet Action) aren't worth the time and effort of locking a torpedo -- or the expense involved in producing such a weapon.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, no tactical data -- but a torpedo is a weapon specifically designed to pass through the tough shields of a military ship and then do damage to their tough ammo. It'd be a sensless waste against a weak civilian ship...
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Of course the torpedo is designed to be as effective as possible against any potential targets. Sure, that means that it's not worth using on civilian ships which don't require such heavy means, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used on civilian ships. So, still no difference.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, it's *not* designed to be as effective as possible against any target -- because it has a locking mechanism that, while allowing it to do significant damage to a military ship, would be a horrible waste of time when attacking a civilian ship.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Yes, but it *would* still work - hence the argument is pointless. The torpedo's locking time is very long because that's the best way to get through more powerful kinds of phase shields - so, it's not there to make the use of it against civilians pointless, but simply to enhance its destructive capabilities. And besides, while the games do not simulate this, we know that torps can be fired without lock (Maniac/Flint tactics interview, WC3 manual).
On a little sidenote, I believe the Lusitania was a civilian ship carrying explosives. The people onboard who died not knowing this of course were innocents, however the government used it to carry munitions. Quite dastardly of them...
If I remember correctly, the holes in the hull were too big to be caused by external fire, the damage was exacerbated by the munitions within.
If I remember correctly, the holes in the hull were too big to be caused by external fire, the damage was exacerbated by the munitions within.
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
Actually, there is in fact evidence to suggest that she WAS carrying munitions in her holds. It has not been definitely proven, and of course governments aren't talking, but the nature of her sinking and hull damage discovered once she was found does support the surmise.
Of course, the German U-boat captain who sank her had no way of knowing this, so it still remains a rather ruthless action to attack without warning, regardless.
[Edited by OriginalPhoenix on 04-23-2001 at 17:18]
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
It *would* work, but it was designed specifically *not* to be used against civilians -- and this fact is quite clear to the general public, thus allowing the torpedo the status of 'moral' weapon.
I mean, we could have dropped WW2 style water torpedos on cities in World War II... they might still explode... there's just absolutely no point in wasting such a weapon in such a manner.
I mean, we could have dropped WW2 style water torpedos on cities in World War II... they might still explode... there's just absolutely no point in wasting such a weapon in such a manner.
Where in the world did you come up with this concept?
Who in their right mind would design a weapon to specifically not target civilian ships? I can just see the torpedo designers at work -
"Great work on that torpedo boys. Now let's add a locking mechanism that takes 20 seconds to lock and leaves our bombers vulnerable to enemy fire, just in case someone wants to fire it at a civilian."
or the Kilrathi -
"<Growl> Sirr, there's a Terran bomber out there. All our fighters have been destroyed! What shall we do"
"Hah. Just turn off our phase shields. Those moral fools won't be able to lock torpedoes on us!"
The whole purpose of the lock time on a torpedo is to make sure it penetrates the phase shields of a capship and detonates on the hull. It COULD easily be used against civilian transports, but this would be the same as using an AIM-54 Phoenix against a Boeing. Why expend a million+ dollar missile on a defenceless target when guns or rockets would do the job just as easily.
The torpedo could (and probably is) fitted with a device that does not allow it to lock onto friendly or neutral targets (just like the FF Missile does automatically), but there is no reason why ANY targetable weapon could not be fitted with such a device, OR for that matter, that the device could not be overriden by the pilot. Imagine not being able to target an enemy capship simply because it changes its IFF signal.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Erm, that's exactly what I'm saying -- the torpedo *can* be used against civilian ships... but it's a *waste* -- like shooting ducks with an a-bomb. I'm not saying they designed the 20 second locking device specifically to make it useless against civilian ships -- but the existence of the 20 second locking device which is *necessary* to attack military ships, makes it fairly pointless to torpedo a civilian ship.