why are there no nuclear in waepons in star wars?~~
I think it might be useful to point out the differences between turbolasers and turbolaser cannons. According to Starships of the Galaxy, turbolasers are much more powerful than mere turbolaser cannons.—Unsigned comment by 70.224.210.19 (talk • contribs).
- 10-4. Cheers, RelentlessRecusant
03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I think we should leave the RPG stats out. They are kind of self contradictory.
Clone Campaigns[]
Where are there turbolasers in Clone Campaigns? -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Venator-class Star Destroyers[]
The batteries that Clone troops are seen firing during the ROTS opening battieris, (i.e. the ones that are exploding on the picture on the page) seem not to be able to exist given the stats for the Venator given everywhere you look. There is no way that these are the DBY-827s - they're way too small. Nor are they the twin medium turbolasers in the bow notches as there's too many of them and their barrels are much too short. Given that there are no other turbolasers listed as armament on these ships (the only other guns we're told about are the twin point-defence laser cannon turrets in the side trenches, and they don't look like those either), precisely where do these guns lie? Or is this another one of those annoying incorrect-weaponary-stats-for-what's-actually-shown issues? CommanderJB 06:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
D units?[]
Why are roleplaying game stats treated as canon units here? "D" just means dice (2D = roll two dices). We don't use such stats in articles about characters or other things because they are only needed for gameplay purposes, not to be used as in-universe units. And due to the randomness of dice roll results, they are useless for comparisons anyway. I'd say all "D" units need to be removed from the article. --Craven 18:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks JMAS, I think that answered my question ;-) -Craven 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm honestly surprised no one else caught this before now. - JMAS 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The quote at the top of the article[]
The guy was telling the flak cannon batteries to fire. 71.220.213.147 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- while some fans believe this to be the case, there's no evidence for it. [user: 22 June 2008]
"Once strictly controlled by Imperial law, turbolaser technology was advanced following the Galactic Civil War when New Republic-contracted military designers created the quick-recharge turbolaser. This variant proved effective during the Yuuzhan Vong War."
There's no such thing as quick-recharge turbolasers. The quote from Jedi Eclipse is talking about regular turbolasers as compared to the Hapan's slow-recharge turbolasers. Which they were eventually given.
"He gestured toward Leia. "She comes to us, asking a favor and bringing only the gift of a warning. Why not the gift of the quick-recharge turbolaser technology the New Republic has withheld for so many years?"
Turbolaser batteries and turbolaser cannons[]
What is the difference between a turbolaser cannon and a turbolaser battery?190.196.32.239 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Anakinskysolo
A cannon is a single cannon, which is mounted on a turret (possibly with other cannons), which may be grouped into a battery with other turrets. The sad thing is that almost nobody can tell a turbolaser from a turbolaser battery. --PisauraXTX (talk) 23:50, November 10, 2015 (UTC)
Turret characteristics[]
Um isn't that "Turbolaser Tower" from KOTOR II an air-defense tower? Wouldn't it be using laser or blaster cannons instead? Forcestorm X 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Exact Power Capability[]
I want to know where all the Star Wars fans are getting the idea that the turbolasers from a single Star Destroyer can "melt the surface of a planet". Colonel Marksman 09:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In general,a turbolaser can melt (destroy) almost any given surface on any given planet.it only takes one turbolaser to melt a planet because it is melting that particular extremely small part of the planet. ~turbogruntman117~
-- That's a claim without a source. You say that...where is your proof? If a Star Destroyer can melt the surface of an entire planet, why go through the trouble with making the Death Star? You're telling me that the little boxes on the Star Destroyers have nuclear WMD capability? Colonel Marksman 08:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The medium sized turbolasers of an Acclamator Troop Transport have a maximum output of 200 gigatons per shot, therefore I would be even more shocked that a Galactic superpower with easy access to warships more than times the size and four thousand times the power output couldn't AT LEAST put out nuclear WMD scale destruction with those "little boxes". This a superpower with the capacity to build weapons capable of vaporizing planets, do you seriously think that creating firepower levels greater than 20th century Earth would be anything less than a trivial matter?
-- So you're saying that the X-Wing fighters during the Battle of Yavin were taking shots from weapons that had four times the explosive power of the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated? Imagine something four times more powerful than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUIMgbXOmJg&feature=related Apparently, we have nuclear weapons that are weaker than a single shot from this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:DSTurbolaser.jpg
--In other words, the turbolaser could shoot at the state of New Jersey just once, and it would completely and totally vaporize, reduced to less than ash. If you live in Texas, that is the entire radius of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. If you live in Cali, that includes San Fransisco and Sacramento. If you live in England, that's the ports in Irvine to those in Edinburgh. I don't know what your reference is for that bit of information, but whoever wrote that clearly didn't do any research. Colonel Marksman 07:03, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Do some research. It's written in canon and therefore must be accepted as gospel, deal with. If you have grievances then this page isn't your personal :message board for airing them.
- 2) What makes you think that they were targeting agile snub fighters with full powered anti-capital ship blasts? Think about what you are saying for a :second before posting it here.
- 3) In vacuum there would be no atmosphere to resist the expansion of the vapor produced. It will continue indefinitely, shortly becoming too diffuse to be :visible regardless of temperature. Basic physics.
- 4) This is a Galactic power with the ability to secretly construct small mobile platforms with the ability to generate thousands of zettatons of energy :and vaporize a planet within the space of a day, do you seriously believe that destroying an area the size of Jersey or England would be an insurmountable :feat in comparison to vaporizing trillions upon trillions upon trillions of tons of rock, metal and molten core? Really think about what you are implying :with such a supposition. —Unsigned comment by 121.214.107.143 (talk • contribs).
- Is it actually stated anywhere that the planet is vaporised? It looks like it explodes. 90.200.105.85 18:52, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
You still need to show a reference of some kind. Saying "its cannon" and showing me a list of references to back up that claim are two different actions. Right now as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than fan-boy hype. If it's written in canon, then reference it and put it into the article. I'm not grieving anything; I'm doubting what's being stated here; it's completely illogical. The Battle of Hoth wouldn't have occurred if 5-6 shots from these tiny little boxed-up turrets could burn the entire moon in a matter of minutes.
- Since there are numerous references and figures to greater than megaton level turbolasers in both the ROTS:ICS and the AOTC:ICS, you have to accept the canon of these statements. Also I have to correct you on two manners:
- 1) Darth Vader wanted Luke alive, making his search pointless if he ended the Battle of Hoth with a single vaporizing strike AFTER the shields had collapsed.
- 2) Burn the moon? How do you burn a surface that has no atmosphere? You're clearly looking for a different term here.
The general assumption comes from people believing titanic nuclear power is required to blow up (vaporize) an asteroid; i'ts only rumor and doesn't belong on a wiki page. I don't think you actually looked through what I was stating; you didn't even click on any links I left. Regardless of how the destruction is made, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated equated 50 million tons of TNT.
- Do some research. A fifty megaton input of energy would be sufficient as to mostly vaporize a 200 meter nickel-iron Asteroid, whilst the trench mounted cannons of the Star Destroyer Avenger were vaporizing 40 meter wide rocks in less than 1/15th of a second for around several megatons of energy per shot. Anyone of these bolts could have destroyed the base on Hoth, yet they resisted from doing so for a specific reason. There goes your initial argument.
What fans are proposing, is that a single turbolaser shot, can output four times the power output of the Tsar Bomba. Before you respond, you better look into what the Tsar Bomba is and what it was capable of. I also suggest watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rHrV2QhArA&feature=related
- I'm more than aware of the limitations of MODERN nuclear fusion and fission in terms of mass conversion, but what YOU have yet to address is why this should inhibit a civilization with access to an energy source capable of vaporizing a planet with more than a quadrillion times the energy released by the Tsar Bomba. Clearly they aren't inhibited by our limitations, are they?
- Also look up your orders of magnitude, 200 gigatons is far more than four times the energy released by 50 megatons. Perhaps you'll have some credibility in your convictions when you can tell the difference between a megaton and a gigaton.
I'm not the ignorant one, nor am I ever. I am willing to do research into the other side of any argument. According to my research, the proposal power-output of the turbolaser is ridiculous, fanboyish, un-researched, without a single drop of canon statements to support it. Colonel Marksman 05:29, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, you're just ignorant of basic scientific principles, canon policy and licensed information which is available on this very site. Clearly you haven't done even an ounce of research, otherwise you wouldn't be here with such ridiculous objections.
As shown by the existence of Base Delta Zero, Turbolasers were perfectly capable of devastating the surface of a planet. Anyway, the "Exact Power Capability" statistics of Turbolasers come from the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections, and yes that is canon. I don't see how those numbers are so ridiculous to you, this is a Galactic Civilization with over 25,000 years of spacefaring history. We only have around 6,000 years of recorded history total, of coarse any weapons we have today will be incredibly outclassed. Smothmoth 19:20, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
You're overlooking the fact that turbolaser outputs in canon were originally stated in joules not tons of TNT however even then outputs are far higher than some nuclear devices. If we elaborate on the fact that turbolasers exert their power outputs on fixed targets such as the asteroids in episode 5 (which are vaporized almost instantaneously) it is believable , meanwhile a nuclear device's power output is exerted over a very large radius but u will notice that rock doesn't exactly vaporize in it's wake. Hence turbolasers do have higher power outputs [Star Wars makes use of very powerful Fusion devices to power ships :)]
First off, the official Star Wars Technical Manual authorized by George Lucas states that a Turbolaser fires laser energy. This is pretty clear that laser energy means electromagnetic based energy, and not some ultra powerful particle based weapon as suggested by a 200 gigaton yield per shot. That means that a single shot from a Turbolaser has the equivalent yield of 4000 times the Tsar bomba. The amount of damage done to a planet’s surface from a single shot would destroy a small state if not more. Second, there is no mention of it having a yield of 200 Gigatons. The information i'm stating here is canon, again coming from the Star Wars Technical Manual. Anything contradicting this should not be considered canon. Finally, the amount of fuel utilized by the fusion process to yield 200 gigatons is ridiculously huge. None of this sounds realistic at all. Just watching the battle sequence over the capital didn't show yield of this level.
- It's been stated in the ICS that the fusion reactors on Star Wars use metallic hydrogen as fuel. If that's the case, it'd only need around 120 cubic meters of fuel for a 200 GT blast. Ships that big could have magazines large enough for hundreds, if not thousands, of shots. I do agree that we don't see anything even remotely that powerful on screen (excepting the Death Star) but, like it or not, it is canon.
90.200.105.85 18:41, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
Sources[]
Now that I think of it, this article is completely unreferenced. Colonel Marksman 08:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Slight rewrite[]
Skimming through the "Features" section, this article could probably use some slight rewrite so that it would be less confusing and less run-onny. It could also be rewritten simpler, and it should also be checked for word overusage. I think that it used too much "thens" as well as too much simple and compound sentences. Added transitions and complex sentences should benefit the article. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this myself. Cyfiero 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm mostly referring to the first two paragraphs of that section, though. Some of the tenses could be corrected too. Cyfiero 08:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the history and examples need to be a separate section, on top of which the detailing of how a turbolaser works uses to much gradeschool science. I could rewrite it, but I'm afraid of contradicting cannon by explaining it in a way that sounds good and makes sense. Considering that lasers don't work in star wars like they do in our galaxy, and that z-pinches seem to replace every form of "Laser" technology. The sniper rifles that shoot beams or the repeating blasters in battlefront and the clone wars video games are closer to lasers, but even then lasers are invisible.
Any way, there needs to be a history section, a how it works section, and an examples section, the examples section should be brief. The history should include a timeline of its advancement, and the how it works should probably be broken down into a bulleted list.AryeonosWhat!? 18:48, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
Color[]
Does anyone else think there should be something in the article that notes the differences in turbolaser blasts' colors? For instance, in the opening of A New Hope, the Blockade runner fired with a red turbolaser bolt, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer returned with a green turbolaser bolt. It always seemed to me that Rebels had "red" blasts and the Empire had "green" blasts, but in-universe, I was wondering if this had something to do with turbolaser technology, the type of super-heated gas that powers the turbolaser, or what. Furthermore, Venator-class Star Destroyers are seen firing BLUE turbolaser blasts. There may or may not be any sources for this, but I think it should at least be mentioned that there are various colors of turbolaser blasts. I suppose the same for laser cannons too, since TIE Fighters shoot green and X-Wings generally shoot red. Any thoughts? Kjølen 00:02, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
In the "New Hope" Book they (The Empire) shot blue bolts, it has to do with the gas, but there is an article on the colour of blaster bolts, I think it is this one.AryeonosWhat!? 18:43, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
Excluding the Death Star super laser, there are no explosions in any of the Star Wars movies consistent with a 200 Gigaton discharge of energy. there really aren't even any explosions consistent with a 1 Megaton discharge, so where the hell they got the idea of those Turbolasers (which the Millenium Falcon could survive) discharging 4000 tsar bombas worth of energy per shot is unknown to me.
Next, the specifications for the Imperial I class Star Destroyer in the wiki have been severely doctored and amped since the original canon. Half that stuff was never even on the ships, and is definitely never seen in the movies.
The Power supply on the ship is not enough to operate all the guns simultaneously and do Propulsion at the same time. Nevermind shields... Someone in the fan boy club can't add,a nd sure as hell doesn't know anything about physics.
- Physics isn't particularly important in Star Wars (they have space-wizards, remember?) Discounting the Death Star blowing a planet apart, weapons and defences seem to be trading between 10 and 1,000 terajoules. If the 200 gigaton values are canon, I can only assume that values for SI units in Star Wars are much smaller than on Earth.
Saak'aak Laser Cannon[]
Is the cannon that destroyed the Radiant VII on the Saak'aak considered a Turbolaser Cannon or just a Laser Cannon?
Melt an ice moon?[]
Is it a typo on this page or was a moon actually said to have melted? I know it's only fiction and physics isn't necessarily important (eg. sonic shock waves in space) but I was wondering if it was supposed to say "vaporised" rather than "melted" ? Vaporising would require an ungodly amount of energy, but it would at least be physically possible. 90.200.105.85 13:05, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
- I just checked the source. Sounds wacky enough, but yes, it does say that the Munificent-class's "two huge turbolaser cannons can blast-melt an ice-moon measuring 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) in diameter." --LelalMekha (talk) 13:19, January 25, 2016 (UTC)