Science Fiction

13658 readers

7 users here now

Welcome to /c/ScienceFiction

December book club canceled. Short stories instead!

We are a community for discussing all things Science Fiction. We want this to be a place for members to discuss and share everything they love about Science Fiction, whether that be books, movies, TV shows and more. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow.

Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
Put (Spoilers) in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers.
Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread.

Lemmy World Rules

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

In the Dune universe, why not use laser weapons as bombs? (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by sudo42@lemmy.world to c/sciencefiction@lemmy.world

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the Dune universe, when a laser weapons hits a shield, both are destroyed in a nuclear explosion reaction.

So instead of building nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it be easier to tie a timer and a “parachute” to a laser gun and drop it from orbit onto your enemy’s city?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the answer is that building a lasgun and a shield is more expensive than building a nuke.

Like, the reason they don't use nukes in Dune isn't because they don't know how to make them, it's because if you ever use them you'll immediately unite the entire Landsraad against you. They have very strict rules against it. And creating a pseudo-nuke as you described still falls under the convention. So, sure, you can do it, but it's wasteful and pointless. Only reason to do it is if a lasgun and a shield is all you've got handy, and you're willing to become public enemy number one for the galaxy.

[–] sudo42@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’m pretty sure the answer is that building a lasgun and a shield is more expensive than building a nuke.

I proposed to drop a (inexpensive) laser gun on the enemy’s (existing city/fortress) shield. Simple, cheap and (overly) effective.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 months ago

I'm not entirely sure how you would rig the lasgun to fire in a way that hits the shield, while it's falling from the sky. And I believe it's random whether or not the shield blows up, so you'd need to drop several for safety.

But at the end of the day, deliberately engineering explosions using shield-laser interactions still contravenes the convention against atomics. The great houses all have plenty of nukes, they really don't need bootstrap solutions. The problem is political, not technical.