{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/1/2013 7:38:55 PM
4
It did seem like a bit of overkill but hey, if you want to blow something up you want to do it in style. Besides, they weren't counting on the destruction of the holding area but rather the engines themselves. Roland even said it himself; if the engines went up, the whole ship would be annihilated. Why bother spreading the nukes out when you can focus them on one key element?
I get what you're saying though.
English
-
[quote] Besides, they weren't counting on the destruction of the holding area but rather the engines themselves.Roland even said it himself; if the engines went up, the whole ship would be annihilated. Why bother spreading the nukes out when you can focus them on one key element?[/quote] Both ways the ship would still be annihilated. Even if they don't destroy the engines they ship is -blam!-ed because a nuke with a 3-5mile radius went off inside it. The ship is about 3 miles long and let's say the nuke has a 3 mile radius. You have 2 ways to blow up the ship: [b]1:[/b] Set 1 nuke off in the center of the ship. So that way the ship would get the full blast radius. [b]2:[/b] Set off a nuke in the front of the ship and 1 in the back. Both of those ways the ship would be destroyed.
-
Triggering the engines into an overload explosion would have done even more damage, so it was either one or the other. Remember the Pillar of Autumn? We're talking some next-level frogblast.
-
But the ship would still get vaporized even without causing the engines to overload.
-
Yes, but bigger explosions = better.
