I am not a big fan of the idea of bits of metal being flung all over a weightless, airless battle zone. Too many opportunities for them to run into friendly ships.
I have a sneaking suspicion recoil from weapons like that would also be an issue in a space-based fighter craft. I am no physicist, however.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullets no more added to the "realism" of the mini than Ellen Degeneris' voice added to the "realism" of Finding Nemo.
There are a couple of things that people conveniently forget. First is that the term "lasers" was used in 1978 because it still sounded other-worldly to most of the general public. Now, of course, we know lasers are used as surgical tools, they read CDs and DVDs, and we're much more familiar with the technology.
The other thing forgotten in discussions like this is that, in the terms of space opera (and BSG in particular), there is nothing suggesting that the technology of the colonials was based on anything familiar to us on Earth. "Laser Torpedoes" is, to us on Earth in 2004, a meaningless term - we know that lasers are beams of coherent light (depending on the source, of course - CO2 lasers are invisible). You can't possibly make torpedoes out of laser beams.
But what if the colonial "laser torpedoes" were based on a completely different, unknown-to-us-on-Earth technology? Energy weapons with parameters completely alien to us.
What's so hard to accept about that,
science fiction fans?
No, bullets didn't add one iota of "realism" to the mini.
Next case, please!
I am
Dawg
