MCU Hela vs DCEU Trinity

[Twickster]

Compare to Superman's nuke scene, which explodes harmlessly in the air. How much force did it have? Only conjecture and estimation, given it never destroys anything.

[The Arbiter]

You are disregarding the fact that Iron Man tanked Sokovia as well. And the fact they stated in words they were going to "cap the explosion and keep the atomic reaction contained within the landmass"

Did... you just ask for Nuke feats?? Wut. I guess fictional ICBM nukes are not just logically worked out to parallel real world counterparts? Feats for fictional bullets next huh? What about forest fires? This line of questioning is absurd. A modern nuke is hundreds of times more powerful than Hiroshima.

Paper CAN cut us. You are proving my point. Do you think a piece of paper is more durable than a human being? Paper cuts are a thing.

[greatmetropolitan]

Err... sharpness *does* equal durable. Else we can start cutting people in half with pieces of paper. The fact that the blades penetrate Thor and not crumple under his proven durability prove this point.

Never had a paper cut?

"Sharpness" nothing but how well something can keep it's edge. You want it to be thin but strong enough not to warp. For example, a square block of adamantium is very durable, not not remotely sharp. It wont cut anyone if you push it on them. The edge of a piece of paper is thin enough to cut you, but due to shape and durability, more often than not it'll just crumple or warp around your flesh. A shard of broken glass is sharp but very brittle and not at all durable. Wolverine's claws are incredibly durable AND sharp, making them a double threat. However, he lacks the strength necessary to push them through someone like, say Colossus.

Tl;dr, you can be "sharp" and not remotely durable, but to get the best use of said sharpness, you want durability.

[Twickster]

Standard modern nukes used by the U.S. government now are 80X more powerful than that used on Hiroshima, so that would be a decent guesstimation for it now. I mean, bombs have been created that are 3,000X more powerful than Hiroshima, but there's no idea if they used the "greatest," so I'd default towards "standard."

So... we're using guesswork and estimation, without knowing the type of nuke, without knowing the payload, without reference to any physical damage it actually does, just... because? Because I can tell you modern tactical nuclear weapons can range from anywhere from ten kilotons (less than Hiroshima) to several hundred, to several thousand. So, what is it, exactly? Because we know how much damage Sokovia did.

[The Arbiter]

So... we're using guesswork and estimation, without knowing the type of nuke, without knowing the payload, without reference to any physical damage it actually does, just... because? Because I can tell you modern tactical nuclear weapons can range from anywhere from ten kilotons (less than Hiroshima) to several hundred, to several thousand. So, what is it, exactly? Because we know how much damage Sokovia did.

The damage sokovia did was "not enough to kill Iron Man"

[Twickster]

You are disregarding the fact that Iron Man tanked Sokovia as well. And the fact they stated in words they were going to "cap the explosion and keep the atomic reaction contained within the landmass"

Iron Man wasn't in the center of the explosion, Thor was. You can actually see him get blown off the periphery of the explosion at 0:59 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnfmmp_Kjek

Did... you just ask for Nuke feats?? Wut. I guess fictional ICBM nukes are not just logically worked out to parallel real world counterparts? Feats for fictional bullets next huh? What about forest fires? This line of questioning is absurd. A modern nuke is hundreds of times more powerful than Hiroshima.

Not all "nukes" are the same. Or are you saying "nuke" is a defined term that all have the same force?

Again, *show* how much damage the nuke that hit Superman did. Come on.

Paper CAN cut us. You are proving my point. Do you think a piece of paper is more durable than a human being? Paper cuts are a thing.

So, can a piece of paper cut a human in half?

[Twickster]

The damage sokovia did was "not enough to kill Iron Man"

So? It is also damage enough to destroy, what... thousands of tons of matter in a significant portion of landmass?

If anything, all that shows is that Iron Man was wearing especially durable armor that day.

[The Arbiter]

Iron Man wasn't in the center of the explosion, Thor was.



Not all "nukes" are the same. Or are you saying "nuke" is a defined term that all have the same force?

Again, *show* how much damage the nuke that hit Superman did. Come on.



So, can a piece of paper cut a human in half?

Iron Man was pressed tightly against Sokovia as it detonated, just like Thor. There was no "center" of the blast because the explosion was "capped" from a heat shield, keeping the atomic reaction contained. You are arguing with the movies own presentation now and writing your own story in your head.

If we see a grenade in a movie... we assume it works like a real grenade in real life right? Do you agree? Same with a Abrams tank or apache helicopter etc. What we see in the movie is an ICBM Nuclear warhead owned by the USA. Going by what those nukes are in real life.... the weakest one you are going to find that fires as a single warhead is about 80x hiroshima. That's not conjecture, that's common sense and a real world equivalent. Arguing further with this point is ridiculous.

Paper can slice skin just fine. So can water. And glass. And lots of things not as durable as a human. Cut in half? Not with printer paper admittedly lol but even then it can draw repeated blood from people without getting damaged itself. See the jackass movie.

Neverminding the fact that we DO see helas blades break, even the big ones, just from the spaceship wiggling free.

[abmccray]

So... we're using guesswork and estimation, without knowing the type of nuke, without knowing the payload, without reference to any physical damage it actually does, just... because? Because I can tell you modern tactical nuclear weapons can range from anywhere from ten kilotons (less than Hiroshima) to several hundred, to several thousand. So, what is it, exactly? Because we know how much damage Sokovia did.

And as I stated, the standard payload rendered in ICBMs by the U.S. should be more than fair to gauge the missile by, in similar ways that we use pretty standard bullet speeds for handguns and rifles, although they can vary depending on a lot of factors.

We know an ICBM was launched at Superman, and looking at the U.S.'s ICBM stockpile, the majority are Minutemen 3's, which have a payload of 170 kilotons TNT.

[Twickster]

Iron Man was pressed tightly against Sokovia as it detonated, just like Thor. There was no "center" of the blast because the explosion was "capped" from a heat shield, keeping the atomic reaction contained. You are arguing with the movies own presentation now and writing your own story in your head.

If we see a grenade in a movie... we assume it works like a real grenade in real life right? Do you agree? Same with a Abrams tank or apache helicopter etc. What we see in the movie is an ICBM Nuclear warhead owned by the USA. Going by what those nukes are in real life.... the weakest one you are going to find that fires as a single warhead is about 80x hiroshima. That's not conjecture, that's common sense and a real world equivalent. Arguing further with this point is ridiculous.

So... absolutely no actual feats for the strength of nuke then? Only highly variable and unverifiable conjecture. I'm glad we have that sorted.

Paper can slice skin just fine. So can water. And glass. And lots of things not as durable as a human. Cut in half? Not with printer paper admittedly lol but even then it can draw repeated blood from people without getting damaged itself. See the jackass movie.

So... no then?

Neverminding the fact that we DO see helas blades break, even the big ones, just from the spaceship wiggling free.

As we have established that Superman has not, in fact, tanked forces greater than Thor, and that the blades have been established to be able to cut Thor, then this is a moot point.

[abmccray]

Hell, I'll do the research of the ICBMs in current usage by the U.S.

Minuteman 3 (which that likely was, by presentation) - 170 kilotons.
Trident 3 - 100 or 475kt

So pick one. The lowest is 100kt, so use that.

[The Arbiter]

Is... is this real life?

When you watch a movie and see a grenade blow up, do you assume its highly variable conjecture on how much force that grenade has? Or do you think modern day grenade equivalent?

The nuke is about 80x stronger than Hiroshima based on real life equivalent weapons that work the same way it was shown to in the movie.
Edit: or see abmccrays post

A spaceship wiggling side to side broke the tip off of one of Helas large blades. They are not that durable that WW can't stop them.

At this point, you are wearing me down through sheer stubborness, and not logical debate.

[Slade1]

So... absolutely no actual feats for the strength of nuke then? Only highly variable and unverifiable conjecture. I'm glad we have that sorted.



So... no then?



As we have established that Superman has not, in fact, tanked forces greater than Thor, and that the blades have been established to be able to cut Thor, then this is a moot point.

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.

[Twickster]

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.

[greatmetropolitan]

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...