Jump to content


Edric O

Recommended Posts

Its called deductive reasoning thufir.

All the evidence points to no tanks, you cannot continue to base the argument for them because you believe Dune is flawed.  It simply doesnt hold water.

1.)  The imperium is anti-technical to begin with

2.)  Arrakis is a very harsh place on machinery, including sandstorms and sandworms among other things.

3.)  Shields nullify their armament

4.)  Tanks cant be used in the open desert because of the worms, sand, etc.

5.)  The only other alternative is for them to fight on rock:  unfortunately for tanks however, thats where 99.9% of the shields are used, and as previously mentioned they nullify their armament.

Let's move on and start thinking of infantry units :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't ... In a deductive reasoning the results are always undeniably true as long as the conditions are true as well (the simple usage of the Pillar-o'-Fire already denies that). And the deductive reasoning doesn't aim at an universal scale truth, it aims at particular truths and so it can't be used.

Therefore it's just plain guessing (or Baconian inductive reasoning, whatever you want to call it).

And just why wouldn't flamers be used?

And "Because they never where!" is not a valid answer. Projectile guns were never used in a shielded war before Paul ...

Ok, all evidences point to the non-existance of tanks ... now what evidences would that be? We haven't got a SINGLE evidence here so far - only assumptions. You say there aren't tanks because they were never mentioned, I say that there are tanks but they were never mentioned.

If you like using philosophical reasoning then you can't say something's true without undiniable confirmation as well as labelling something fake without flawless evidence as well. Now the Books don't say: "There are tanks." or "There are no tanks." so that leaves us where? In the speculation fields.

1.) And the US governement is peace-loving but keeps getting into wars. And just because everyone else isn't doing it doesn't mean you should too (specially in the case of a war, where staying ahead in the tech race is crucial).

2.) Arrakis is very harsh on machines and extremelly harsh on men. Why can't machines be there too? A vehicle is much better suited to survive the extreme temperatures and the lack of water. Of course that the eternal disadvantage of a vehicle is the SandWorm problem, but the eternal disadvantage of infantry forces are SandStorms.

3.) First I say that shields can't be completely invunerable to small-scale weapons and you go by Duffy to prove me wrong.

Basing myself on Duffy too I show that heat passes thru' shields.

Then you go by DE and try to prove me wrong too.

Again I show heat passes according to DE too, now you ignore both and say "it just isn't so" ?!?!

I'm basing myself on the Books here and you still keep saying that stuff? Geeeeez! Their weapons ARE effective, no argument there (unless you have something new to show me).

4.) Tanks can't be used in the open desert because of the SandWorms, not the sand.

5.) Their only alternative is to fight on rock or SandWorm-safe sand areas. And who cares about all those shields if heat passes through them? Only large bubble shields are invunerable to them and those are only found in fortifications.

I am truly tired of this tanks thing! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thufir, if what you are saying about heat passing through shields is true, then that Prism Tank might work. If you use a prism to redirect solar rays on Arrakis that would be a type of weapon. Also it would probably have gamma and x-ray radiation in it. The downside is you risk the same risk as a lasgun and shield if this doesn't work. Meanwhile the bubble shields would be vulnerable in one area. If one lone soldier fired a lasgun into it. Also a missile tank like you described would be a good idea I think. Imagine a missile hitting in the middle of a shielded infantry division. They would at least be blown back maybe falling on their own knives, that is if the missile didn't kill them off somehow. Also one more thing a formation on the sand would not want to risk having a shield on if they were smart. A tank from a small island of rock in the middle of the desert could bombard them, without shields on they would did, with shields on they would attract a worm, which would you chose for your men death or near certain death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes as a weapon, reflect and concentrate the beam into a focused channel. Also has anyone though of the Idea for a ATOMIC DESTABLISER? It basicly breaks down the Strong Nuclear Bonds holding the protons together so the unit and anything unlucky enough to get into range is a pile of stray particles. Ion Tank?

Hey Stiglar, nice to see ya! Haven't seen ya at RAX, they have a forum you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...