Talk:GTM Cyclops: Difference between revisions
FlamingCobra (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m sure why not |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: "Non-conventional" could be any of those, and it could even vary among different versions of the Cyclops. I think that's as far as canon will get you. [[User:Qent|Qent]] 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | : "Non-conventional" could be any of those, and it could even vary among different versions of the Cyclops. I think that's as far as canon will get you. [[User:Qent|Qent]] 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
::"Could it be a weapon that disrupts subatomic particles at the quark level? --[[User:FlamingCobra|FlamingCobra]] 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | ::"Could it be a weapon that disrupts subatomic particles at the quark level? --[[User:FlamingCobra|FlamingCobra]] 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::There is no canon information to suggest this. Unless this has some relevance to the Wiki coverage of this topic, this discussion probably belongs on the forum. - [[User:Snail|Snail]] 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:15, 7 July 2011
So, what kind of warhead does it use? Antimatter? Fission? Fusion? Fission and Fusion? Matter-antimatter annihilation? --FlamingCobra 19:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Non-conventional" could be any of those, and it could even vary among different versions of the Cyclops. I think that's as far as canon will get you. Qent 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Could it be a weapon that disrupts subatomic particles at the quark level? --FlamingCobra 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is no canon information to suggest this. Unless this has some relevance to the Wiki coverage of this topic, this discussion probably belongs on the forum. - Snail 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Could it be a weapon that disrupts subatomic particles at the quark level? --FlamingCobra 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)