MCU Hela vs DCEU Trinity

[Twickster]

What feats does Sokovia have that proves that it would explode the same way in real life. No feats, gotcha. Your saying we don't know how powerful a nuke is but your fine with a floating city that blows up with an unspecified amount of force. Can't have a double standard.

We know that the force required to blow up a landmass of that size requires *much* more than a modern tactical nuke.

[Slade1]

Actual physical destruction of a nuke: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-si...monuclear-bomb

"The Sedan nuclear test in 1962 left a crater 100 meters deep with a diameter of 390 meters from the detonation of a hydrogen bomb with a yield of 104 kilotons placed 194 meters below ground. The blast moved 11,000,000 tons of material. "

The chunk of Sokovia is much greater than 390 meters.

So I ask you again, what feats does Sokovia have that it would explode the same way in real life?

[Twickster]

Worth mentioning that it was, of course, not Sokovia itself that was blown up, but a city IN Sokovia, called Novi Grad, I believe. The SFX supervisor on AoU said that it was basically 2km across. That's....not particularly big. I mean, yes, hell of an explosion, of course, but we need to put "city" into a frame of reference here.

The Nagasaki blast radius was 2km, btw. If we assume a 100KT warhead, which is the low end, that's 6 times more powerful than the Nagasaki blast at least. I'd imagine the military launches the biggest nuke they have at something capable of fighting Superman, to be fair.

The city also blew up from the inside out, not like a bomb was detonated ON it. It's like that scene in, god help me, Armageddon, where they explain that less force inside an object is more effective than ON it. basically I'm saying I think it'd take less than a 100KT warhead to blow up a 2km city from the inside. And we always have the proviso that Clark was still suffering from K when he took that.

Anyway, i think I'm bowing out. I can't see minds being changed here...

You are talking about the effect radius on human habitation... buildings, humans, etc. This is not the same as the force to blow up the solid ground underneath it, which is, again, much more than a modern tactical nuke.

[The Arbiter]

Actual physical destruction of a nuke: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-si...monuclear-bomb

"The Sedan nuclear test in 1962 left a crater 100 meters deep with a diameter of 390 meters from the detonation of a hydrogen bomb with a yield of 104 kilotons placed 194 meters below ground. The blast moved 11,000,000 tons of material. "

The chunk of Sokovia is much greater than 390 meters.

....

Still ignoring the movies own interpretation of the Sokovia feat I see? Based on everything from dialogue to showing Iron Man tank it? A specific plot point that it was contained capped and shielded?

[Twickster]

So I ask you again, what feats does Sokovia have that it would explode the same way in real life?

You have it backwards. Sokovia is 2 km in diameter. The fact that it blew up means that it had an explosion capable of blowing up a 2km radius landmass (not the buildings on top of it, the landmass). This is much more than what a modern nuke, which blows up only... what, a hundred meter radius or so... actually accomplishes.

[abmccray]

On top of that the Sokovia blast specifically was created to make the material inside unstable and break it apart. And Thor was somewhere on top of the island when it happened (as was Iron Man).

This wasn't "Nappa raised two fingers and vaped a country sized area where he and Vegeta stood in the center" kind of thing - this is a more non quantifiable feat that was based around a specific set of circumstances.

[Twickster]

....

Still ignoring the movies own interpretation of the Sokovia dear I see? Based on everything from dialogue to showing Iron Man tank it? A specific plot point that it was contained capped and shielded?

Which is no different than a modern underground nuke test... from a modern tactical nuke... which still creates a crater less than what is required to blow up Sokovia.

[Slade1]

You have it backwards. Sokovia is 2 km in diameter. The fact that it blew up means that it had an explosion capable of blowing up a 2km radius landmass (not the buildings on top of it, the landmass). This is much more than what a modern nuke, which blows up only... what, a hundred meter radius or so... actually accomplishes.

Then how did Iron Man survive it?

[Twickster]

This wasn't "Nappa raised two fingers and vaped a country sized area where he and Vegeta stood in the center" kind of thing - this is a more non quantifiable feat that was based around a specific set of circumstances.

Like having a completely unknown force, from a completely unknown nuke, which exploded completely harmlessly, with no point of reference as to how much force it had?

[Twickster]

Then how did Iron Man survive it?

Especially durable armor, like how he always does in the Avengers films. His armor was much better in the first Avengers than in any of his solo films as well.

[abmccray]

Like having a completely unknown force, from a completely unknown nuke, which exploded completely harmlessly, with no point of reference as to how much force it had?

Wait, what? We know it was an ICBM launched from the U.S. They probably would have used the strongest (450ish) but we can use the weakest (100). That's like asking "what, exactly, type of grenade is that?" It's a goofy distinction that just sounds like attempting to lowball someone with an overfocus on specifics.

Now if Thor and Superman both tanked nukes, then knowing while one would matter, but when we know (since its the lowest yield in current usage) that Superman took at least a square mile of a city leveling force in the face and survived it without his body breaking apart at all, that's the base for his durability.

On the flip side, Thor broke the vibranium core of a floating city which ruined the stability of a floating island and broke it apart. There was a blowback of explosion when he broke the core, and the island broke apart and fell. That's not "an island destroying explosion" - it's a completely non quantifiable feat.

[The Arbiter]

Especially durable armor, like how he always does in the Avengers films. His armor was much better in the first Avengers than in any of his solo films as well.

Again: when you see a grenade in movies, do you question it? Or equate it to a real work equivalent? Why is the nuke different? Many people now have told you how big it should be. You ignoring it further is just bizarre. Please answer the grenade question.

Iron Man had armor on in the avengers movies that was just plain better huh? Do you hear how crazy this sounds? Why would he ever wear anything different? Why need the hukbuster as a specific plot point? Thor crushing his armor is what, pis? Winter Soldier tearing pieces off, pis? Unless you are saying his metal arm can hit with megatons of force.

Even if sokovia did detonate like you say (it didnt, see above arguments) and did generate that much force (again it didn't) then its still not as impressive as you say. It blew up over a huge distance in 360 degrees. Not focused all up on Thors face. Only a tiny fraction hit him. And again, even that was "capped, shielded, contained, doubled back in itself" and was survivable by iron man.

[choptop]

Actually, upon review, you are indeed correct.

After consulting my physics professor however, he is relatively certain that the level of blast we see from the ground is indicative of a more powerful device. For whatever that's worth lol. He used to work for Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

This may hellp on the how big the nuk thing was.

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

I guess my thing, if I had a thing, would be; why are we saying that- let's just go with a standard-yield tactical nuke- is detonating with more force than an explosion specifically designed to prevent a two-kilometer* area from effectively destroying the planet (impact was going to cause an extinction event)?

Beyond that. If you watch the clip, the explosion happens near the top-end of Sokovia- otherwise known as "where Thor is currently standing- and while the entire landmass goes up in beautiful blue annihilation, Iron Man is knocked away, and is not at all caught up in the explosion itself. Thor... Is definitely caught up in it. Unless y'all intend to argue that he flew out of it, or that something blowing up in your face like that is somehow a really low showing for ... I mean come on guys, really? So, again, if I had a thing, which I may or may not have; why are we debating about the size of the nuke- nothing is stated, at BEST we assume it's a standard-yield- when one explosion is still ludicrously more powerful than the other?

*it's two-kilometers around, but we know it's more than just the city

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

Again: when you see a grenade in movies, do you question it? Or equate it to a real work equivalent? Why is the nuke different? Many people now have told you how big it should be. You ignoring it further is just bizarre. Please answer the grenade question.

Iron Man had armor on in the avengers movies that was just plain better huh? Do you hear how crazy this sounds? Why would he ever wear anything different? Why need the hukbuster as a specific plot point? Thor crushing his armor is what, pis? Winter Soldier tearing pieces off, pis? Unless you are saying his metal arm can hit with megatons of force.

Even if sokovia did detonate like you say (it didnt, see above arguments) and did generate that much force (again it didn't) then its still not as impressive as you say. It blew up over a huge distance in 360 degrees. Not focused all up on Thors face. Only a tiny fraction hit him. And again, even that was "capped, shielded, contained, doubled back in itself" and was survivable by iron man.

I mean look. I understand you using Civil War for the purpose of downplaying Iron Man's armor and all but ... I mean, really? That's like saying comic book Hulk losing to a large snake is legit becuase it happened.