Are Metal Gears theoretically Possible?

OMFG THAT IS LIQUID POTENTIAL!!!!

The shagohad itself simply doesn't work, the physics simply make it impossible. Any machine that heavy forced to move that fast would rip itself apart before it could get to a speed to actually launch an ICBM.

TV Tropes itself simply doesn't work, the physics simply make it impossible. Any machine that heavy forced to move that fast would rip itself apart before it could get to a speed to actually launch an ICBM.

Rosie O'Donnell herself simply doesn't work, the physics simply make it impossible. Any machine that heavy forced to move that fast would rip itself apart before it could get to a speed to actually launch an ICBM.

Quentin Tarantino's ballsack itself simply doesn't work, the physics simply make it impossible. Any machine that heavy forced to move that fast would rip itself apart before it could get to a speed to actually launch an ICBM.

Joss Wheldon's writing itself simply doesn't work, the awesomeness overload simply make it impossible. Any programme that awesome forced to move that fast would be cancelled by FOX before it could get to a speed to actually become popular.

I'm actually not sure whether a suborbital trajectory railgun that launches nuclear warheads would be feasible, actually. Not because you couldn't build a railgun that big ( we can't currently, but give it time ), but because I'm not sure a nuclear warhead could tolerate the acceleration. Remember, unlike a ballistic missile, the projectile in question would need to undergo *all* its acceleration within the length of the barrel. That's a lot of force for a comparatively delicate device to suffer.

It also wouldn't be undetectable. Yes, the launch signature might be nonexistent, but friction heat would produce enough of a heat signature to track the reentry. Apply basic physics, and you know where it was launched.

They might be, but they probably wouldn't be very effective. The Metal Gear series even lampshades its impracticality in Snake Eater with one of the dialogue with Sigint.

People said flying was impossible too. So I generally tend to take nay sayers with a grain of salt.

After all, there were many failed conceptions of a "flying machine" before the wright brothers created a feasible platform.

Theoretically, it would be possible, if you had enough time and resources. Practically, well...That's another story.

Theoretically, we could have anti-matter engines in the next 50 years.
Practically, it isn't going to happen.

Mainly because the nearest sources of antimatter are in very distant parts of the solar system.

Anti-matter can be and has been artificially generated. Its just EXTREMELY costly. Science bless CERN.

Of course metal gears are possible. What else could the big mecha/robot/whatever that's parked next to my bear cave be?

@Tze - At the very least, Gekko had the excuse of the legs being freakishly powerful.

Ladies and gentlemen, Shagohod: [[youtube:1uynmApjhWI&feature=player_embedded]]

Guys, I think we have a meme going.

Theoretically, you would use your brain. Practically, however, you're an idiot.

Theoretically, most memes take off on their own. Practically, however, someone announces the meme and hurts it.

Just saying, you just made the meme a bit forced.

As for metal gears, a portable nuke tank is an interesting idea, but there's many more efficient ways of making that portable tank than using legs.

edited 8th Mar '11 8:51:28 PM by Usht

Besides, Gundam should be top priority.

Theoretically, metal gears. Practically, METAL GEARS!??!

Gundams are about as practical as Hitler's masturbatory tank ideas.

Theoretically, huh?

No no no, its:
Theoretically, a walking tank with a railgun that fires nukes is a possiblity. Practically, however, METAL GEAR!?

A forced meme?!

Theoretically, memes can be introduced to the masses and flourish. Practically, however, most memes will die after being labeled as such as most uses will be considered forced and annoying.

Theoretically, thats all well and good. Practically, however, shut your pie hole.

I don't know, doesn't anyone else see the impracticality making a nuclear weapons tank. True, the Shagohod would be something that could actually be built, but its still not a practical combat vehicle, but if you still don't understand then think back to the boss fight against it.

I think its more a "shit your pants" weapon. Its just there to demoralise the enemy when they say "Sarge, there's a tank the size of my home town heading straight for us.

Plus, never underestimate the need for some military men to compensate for small dicks. Half the Nazi war vehicles, for one thing.

edited 8th Mar '11 9:20:34 PM by IndigoDingo

I think that you're doing something very, very wrong if your ICBM-armed tank is fighting regular soldiers.