Reactive Weapons

[Godzilla]

I was reading the inserts from Animego SDF Macross and found something interesting. According to the inserts, they never referred to the reactive weapons as nuclear weapons because in Japan, they believe that the goods guys should never use nuclear weapons. Is that true? I am assuming the reason why is because Japan was the receiving end of the a-bomb in WW2?

[JELEINEN]

I was reading the inserts from Animego SDF Macross and found something interesting. According to the inserts, they never referred to the reactive weapons as nuclear weapons because in Japan, they believe that the goods guys should never use nuclear weapons. Is that true? I am assuming the reason why is because Japan was the receiving end of the a-bomb in WW2?

I don't know if it's generally true, but it does make sense. Another example would be how all the characters react when the true source of Giant Robo's power is revealed in Giant Robo The Animation.

[Mr March]

I was reading the inserts from Animego SDF Macross and found something interesting. According to the inserts, they never referred to the reactive weapons as nuclear weapons because in Japan, they believe that the goods guys should never use nuclear weapons. Is that true? I am assuming the reason why is because Japan was the receiving end of the a-bomb in WW2?

Yes. And being on the end of a nuke would tend to have an effect on your opinion of them.

[Agent ONE]

LOL

[Knight26]

Yes, reaction weapons are in fact nukes, which is probably one of the main reasons why Macross is not as popular in Japan as Gundam. I say this because rarely if ever in Gundam do you hear about nukes and even then they are usually used only by the bad guys or as a last resort by the good guys. However, in Macross the good guys quite liberally use the Reaction Warheads, Nukes, even in the first episode the initial attack by the UN Spacy is made using RWs. The primary anti-capital ship weapon is also an RW and the UN Spacy has no real compunctions against using it them in SW1. Afterwards there are hints that they are no longer used as liberally, yet they are still kept active in the arsenals.

[Syngyne]

Are there any "official" sources online explaining what reaction weapons are and why they were called that? There's a debate going on at another message board concerning what reaction weapons are.

[Mr March]

Are there any "official" sources online explaining what reaction weapons are and why they were called that? There's a debate going on at another message board concerning what reaction weapons are.

Do I dare ask which message board?

[Syngyne]

It's probably not the one you're thinking of

[Duke Togo]

I thought they called them "Reflex Weaponry".

[Aurel Tristen]

Are there any "official" sources online explaining what reaction weapons are and why they were called that? There's a debate going on at another message board concerning what reaction weapons are.

'Reactive Weapons' (also 'reaction weapons') are nuclear, thermonuclear, or certain other extremely destructive weapons; especially those that were developed with OTM (Over-Technology of Macross); either, but not limited to ones whose primary designated use is anti-ship, air-defense and/or anti-celestial object (planetary bombardment). These weapons can either be launched from a fighter and/or a warship etc. The first successful test of an OTM-derived reactive weapon took place on the lunar surface in the year 2004 (February). These weapons were used in Space War I and their use was subsequently diminished and limited shortly thereafter. In 2040, the AVF Program, Project Super Nova on Planet Eden was developing next generation of Variable Fighters which could use fold boosters and could perform so well that, among other things, reactive weapons would not be needed further except in extreme situations. One such instance in which they were issued was towards the end of the Macross 7/Protoculture conflict in 2047.

Information on some of the various types of reactive weapons can be found at the links before:

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...ve_missile.html

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...ssile-2047.html

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...siles/rms1.html

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...les/srmh03.html

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...ea_sparrow.html

Edited February 14, 2004 by Nanashi

[Agent ONE]

I thought they called them "Reflex Weaponry".

...Made with Row-boat technology.

[JValk]

hold on - isnt the armoured vf-0 made of "reactive armor"? there was even a slo-mo of the arm armor shearing off when the bullet hit it - so this "reactive" technology is diff than the nuclear stuff? im confused, i always thought earth tech was reactive technology, vs supervision or zent, etc.

[JB0]

hold on - isnt the armoured vf-0 made of "reactive armor"? there was even a slo-mo of the arm armor shearing off when the bullet hit it - so this "reactive" technology is diff than the nuclear stuff? im confused, i always thought earth tech was reactive technology, vs supervision or zent, etc.

That's diffrent.

Reaction weaponry = nuclear reaction = nukes.

And the Earth is the only people with reaction weaponry, because the protoculture took it back from the Zentradi.

Reactive armor = the armor reacts to an attack. Almost invariably means there's explosives that blow up, interfering with armor-piercing weaponry.

Overtechnology = super-high-tech stuff reverse-engineered from the Macross.

[ewilen]

Reactive armor = the armor reacts to an attack. Almost invariably means there's explosives that blow up, interfering with armor-piercing weaponry.

Correct. Well, almost. Early reactive armor is only designed to interfere with HEAT ("high explosive anti-tank, a.k.a. "shaped charge") rounds. Newer reactive armor can also interfere with AP.

And in case anyone's wondering, it's been around since at least 1982--there are pictures of Syrian tanks in Lebanon which have it. It gives them a texture kind of like The Thing from Fantastic Four. The U.S. uses it too.

That part in M0 where Roy's 1S has reactive armor doesn't strike me as particularly accurate, by the way, but since I've never seen a super slo-mo of a round hitting reactive armor, I could easily be mistaken.

[JB0]

Reactive armor = the armor reacts to an attack. Almost invariably means there's explosives that blow up, interfering with armor-piercing weaponry.

Correct. Well, almost. Early reactive armor is only designed to interfere with HEAT ("high explosive anti-tank, a.k.a. "shaped charge") rounds. Newer reactive armor can also interfere with AP.

And in case anyone's wondering, it's been around since at least 1982--there are pictures of Syrian tanks in Lebanon which have it. It gives them a texture kind of like The Thing from Fantastic Four. The U.S. uses it too.

That part in M0 where Roy's 1S has reactive armor doesn't strike me as particularly accurate, by the way, but since I've never seen a super slo-mo of a round hitting reactive armor, I could easily be mistaken.

Well, I thought HEAT rounds WERE a kind of armor-piercing weapon.

They sure punch through it well enough...

[ewilen]

English vs. military jargon. HEAT punches through armor using a shaped charge to focus the energy of an explosion onto a small point on the armor. AP punches through armor by being a dense chunk of metal and hitting the armor really hard.

Here's a really nice discussion of many of the forms of ammo, including several types of AP and HEAT: http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html

And on reflection, I note that several kinds of AP and HEAT have ballistic caps or other elements which "squash" when they hit armor--so I've changed my mind and now think that bit is okay.

[Aurel Tristen]

hold on - isnt the armoured vf-0 made of "reactive armor"? there was even a slo-mo of the arm armor shearing off when the bullet hit it - so this "reactive" technology is diff than the nuclear stuff? im confused, i always thought earth tech was reactive technology, vs supervision or zent, etc.

Yes, the basic concept of reactive armor is conventional.

However, reactive weapons (reaction weapons) are OTM derived

I say "reactive weapon" (反応兵器 / hannou heiki) because that is how it is written in English on the Macross 7 liner notes which would make it an official spelling.

[Mr March]

It's probably not the one you're thinking of

Well, the typical culprits requiring such info would be spacebattles.com, stardestroyer.net, b5tech.com, or other such "versus" locales

I'm just curious.

[Agent ONE]

I have something "reactive" in my pants... Maybe the Zjentohlauedy will come after me now.

[Southcross]

I have something "reactive" in my pants... Maybe the Zjentohlauedy will come after me now.

reactive door knob?

Edited February 17, 2004 by Southcross

[Syngyne]

Well, the typical culprits requiring such info would be spacebattles.com, stardestroyer.net, b5tech.com, or other such "versus" locales

I'm just curious.

*ding*

And thanks for the articles, Nanashi.

[Mr March]

Hehehe

[Stamen0083]

Yes, reaction weapons are in fact nukes, which is probably one of the main reasons why Macross is not as popular in Japan as Gundam. I say this because rarely if ever in Gundam do you hear about nukes and even then they are usually used only by the bad guys or as a last resort by the good guys.

I don't know if this means anything, but the MS in Gundam is powered by a nuclear reactor.

In 08th MS Team, a damaged GM had its reactor breached on purpose to create a nuclear explosion.

In MSG 0079, Amuro's destruction of the first Zaku resulted in a nuclear explosion, which, if I recall, punched a hole clean through Side 7.

So I don't think Gundam's popularity has ANYTHING to do with nuclear reactions.

[JB0]

Yes, reaction weapons are in fact nukes, which is probably one of the main reasons why Macross is not as popular in Japan as Gundam.  I say this because rarely if ever in Gundam do you hear about nukes and even then they are usually used only by the bad guys or as a last resort by the good guys.

I don't know if this means anything, but the MS in Gundam is powered by a nuclear reactor.

To further specify, they're powered by a fusion reactor.

A particularly exotic variety of fusion reactor.

In 08th MS Team, a damaged GM had its reactor breached on purpose to create a nuclear explosion.

In MSG 0079, Amuro's destruction of the first Zaku resulted in a nuclear explosion, which, if I recall, punched a hole clean through Side 7.

I don't think either of those would work in reality.

[radman]

I thought the reactive weapons were basically fusion weapons-hydrogen bombs.

Now that one thinks, the US military strategic weapons are primarily nukes but there are some hydrogen bombs or warheads-clean weapons!

[ewilen]

I don't think there are any real-world hydrogen bombs which are "clean".

If I may engage in speculation, I tend to think of reaction weapons as fusion warheads which through the use of OT don't need a fission reaction to set them off. Don't know if that's supported or refuted by anything canonical.

[Agent ONE]

I NUKES.

[Stamen0083]

I don't think either of those would work in reality.

Then a nuclear meltdown (granted, it's fission, not fusion) would be imaginary.

Still wouldn't explode, I guess...

A fusion reaction could just as easily get out of control, especially when we get to the point where cold fusion is a day to day occurrence.

Of course, I can't rule out artistic licensing/anime physics, can I? :-D

Edited February 18, 2004 by Stamen0083

[ewilen]

Exactly--breaching a nuclear reactor wouldn't create much of an explosion, compared to an actual fission bomb (let alone a thermonuclear bomb). Neither would a meltdown. Both would result in a bunch of deadly isotopes being released into the atmosphere, but the blast, if any, would be relatively small.

[KingNor]

Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives in Japan than the planned full scale invasion would have.

it's probably the only time ever that using weapons of mass-destruction like that will actually save lives.

If the bombs hadn't helped sway the Emperor into telling his people to "end the war" then everyone in japan would have fought to the death against the allied forces. forcing the Allies to take HUGE losses and probably end up wipeing out the japanese people, with incredible death counts on both sides.

probably the only time a situation like that will ever occur since all superpowers today don't have that kind of loyalty in their culture anymore. although it would be intresting to see how Americans would react to the prospect of being invaded.

[JB0]

I don't think either of those would work in reality.

Then a nuclear meltdown (granted, it's fission, not fusion) would be imaginary.

Still wouldn't explode, I guess...

A fusion reaction could just as easily get out of control, especially when we get to the point where cold fusion is a day to day occurrence.

Of course, I can't rule out artistic licensing/anime physics, can I? :-D

Well, a meltdown, like you said, isn't fusion and doesn't go boom.

And a fusion reactor is a funny thing. Unlike fission, which requires an active effort to slow the reaction, fusion requires an active effort to keep the reaction going.

If it fails, the thing gets cold.

If the tank ruptures, the fuel currently in the reaction tank spills out, but it's a fraction of the total hydrongen, and it's already cooling. The fusion is already over when it leaves the tank, and a fusion reactor isn't generating near the power of a good h-bomb to begin with.

You'd get a nice explosion, but nothing on the nuclear level.

...

Hmmm... maybe if you could dump your entire fuel tank into the reaction chamber at once, and keep the reaction going... That oughta offer a big boom...

[Agent ONE]

Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives in Japan than the planned full scale invasion would have.

...

THATS WHY NUKES ARE GREAT!!!

[Godzilla]

Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives in Japan than the planned full scale invasion would have.

...

THATS WHY NUKES ARE GREAT!!!

Well... I am not so sure they are great but I am not going to dispute the use of A-bomb in the end of WW2. Yes, it saved countless lives but I think one bomb was enough. I mean 3 days later you drop another one? I think the Allies should have given Japan about a week to figure out what the hell happened and let it sink in. Granted that a military target should have been chosen (but that would not have shown what the bomb can do.). You have to remember, the Japanese civilians did not know what was going on out in the Pacific. (correct me if I am wrong) Of course the civilians probably turned a blind eye to when they enjoyed the spoils of war. The Emperor was never really the leader of his country during WW2. The military took over Japan. Yes the Emperor forced the military to surrender.

My question is: Could it be saying that in Macross that America is evil because of the use nuclear weapons? They say that Macross creator thinks the "good guys" never use nuclear weapons according the Macross insert I have in the DVD.

[Southcross]

Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives in Japan than the planned full scale invasion would have.

...

THATS WHY NUKES ARE GREAT!!!

Well... I am not so sure they are great but I am not going to dispute the use of A-bomb in the end of WW2. Yes, it saved countless lives but I think one bomb was enough. I mean 3 days later you drop another one? I think the Allies should have given Japan about a week to figure out what the hell happened and let it sink in. Granted that a military target should have been chosen (but that would not have shown what the bomb can do.). You have to remember, the Japanese civilians did not know what was going on out in the Pacific. (correct me if I am wrong) Of course the civilians probably turned a blind eye to when they enjoyed the spoils of war. The Emperor was never really the leader of his country during WW2. The military took over Japan. Yes the Emperor forced the military to surrender.

My question is: Could it be saying that in Macross that America is evil because of the use nuclear weapons? They say that Macross creator thinks the "good guys" never use nuclear weapons according the Macross insert I have in the DVD.

Part of the reason (as I understand it) that we dropped the second bomb... There was a question that "we blew our load"... that we didn't have another bomb... The Japanese Leaders questioned it... and we knew they would. So we hit them a second time. Kind of a "answer me, or I shall hit you again"

Now if Japan didn't surrender, we probably would have been screwed. How long would it have taken to make another bomb??? (not fast enough) the US at the time did not have the technology to rapidly produce "high-grade" uranium.

[KingNor]

You have to remember, the Japanese civilians did not know what was going on out in the Pacific. (correct me if I am wrong) Of course the civilians probably turned a blind eye to when they enjoyed the spoils of war.

actually, the civilian puplic of japan knew invasion was iminent, the japanise government was training them for hand to hand combat. even women, children and the elderly were prepaired to fight to the death.

this is why the predicted cost of life was expected to be so high, the actual japanise military had been desimated, all their seasoned soldiers were dead (just ask ww2 pacific allied fighter pilots)

imagine allied soldiers having to fight heavily fortified strongholds every couple of miles, and when finally breaking though, having to slaughter women and children because none would surrender, and would continue to fight untill dead...

its easy to take all these reasons and try to defend the a-bombs as having been dropped on a 'kind' of military target since the entire japanise populace was consider hostile and had proven earlyer that they would not surrender, choosing fighting or suicide instead. this isn't the case though, the targets were selected more to test the power of the bombs, wich is something i'm not proud of.

before you judge the americans of the time however, you have to remember that all through europe, city wide carpet bombing from both allies and axis was common practice, and had cost far more lives on both sides than both atom bombs combined. it was the way war was conducted, true persision bombing just didn't exist. times have changed though, and for the most part the US doesn't do that sourt of thing anymore. we do have tactical nukes aimed at enemy citys, but these are retaliatory defence systems that i don't think anyone seriously plans on using. one can hope anyway.

Edited February 19, 2004 by KingNor