Why has your sci-fi faction not embraced Dyson Beams?

>>53185814
Because all it takes is one farm kid from some backwater planet to blow the whole thing up.

>>53185814

...how do you turn it off?

File: 1482994347708.jpg (26KB, 356x256px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 356x256px

>>53185880
Why would you want to?

How do you shut that thing off anyway ?

>>53185814
I'll tell you why.

Because light speed weaponry is too slow to hit anything.

>>53185814
You know that image that explains why throwing an asteroid at a planet is incredibly inefficient compared to just bombing the shit out of it?

A weaponized Dyson Sphere is kinda like that, except multiplied by a million.

>>53185814
>Ditch warfleets altogether and laugh as you turn planets to glass by the dozen every day
The closest star is one lightyear away.

>>53185902
FTL is a myth.

>>53185904
Actually it's the other way around. bombing the shit out of a planet is vastly more expensive then hauling some rocks so they fall and the locals die.

>>53185959
>FTL is a myth.
Then interstellar warfare is pointless.

>>53185959
So are Dyson spheres.

>>53185814
Because, as discussed the last time this came up, giant space lasers are pretty near the bottom of the barrel in terms of the most interesting/exciting/useful things you can do with a dyson sphere.

>>53185959
>bombing the shit out of a planet is vastly more expensive then hauling some rocks so they fall and the locals die.
I don't remember the total cost of the nuclear warheads across the world but it can't be more expensive than that considering it's made of nuclear combustible waste.

>>53185904
>trying to point out inefficiencies with 40k materials
Dropping a modestly sized rock from a higher orbit into a planet is an amazing RKV if you can get sufficient thruster mass out to it and wait for it to travel. 40k has the luxury of CONTERNENT EVAPERATIN METLER BAMBS whenever the writers want to give a planet some extra craters, but any slightly hard setting isn't going to have "technology" with more destructive yield in a bombardment than a kinectic projectile falling towards the sun on an intercept course with the target planet.

>>53186177
Or you pop close to the planet, drop a few hundreds of your smallest calibre thermonuclear missiles on the planet and it's done.

>>53186177
Which is more expensive in terms of energy? Accelerating a rock to 0.999 c or accelerating a viral bomb to 0.000001 c to kill off a planet?