Talk:Shiva-class nuclear missile

too small
while I understand why they HAVOK mines would be around 30megatons, it would seem that a nuke designed to fight ships well over 1km in length, and govered by a couple of meters of titanium armor would have more punch to it.

sources?
where did the 30 megaton yeild come from?

Yield is too small
The current yield of only 30 to 80 megatons doesn’t make that much sense. For one thing Archer Missles would probably be equipped with a 30 megaton HAVOK warhead for the purpose of anti-ship warfare and it takes hundreds of them to just down the shields on a Covenant Carrier.

There's no evidence that Archer missiles use HAVOKs, if they did then the 30 megaton mine field wouldn't have even been considered, especially since Archers are direct detonation missiles. Speaking of HORNET mines, for those 14 mines to be used over three Shivas then logically a Shiva would probably be somewhere around 140 megatons.

That said, I'm not sure where the 80 megaton Shiva yield came from. I think it was from a quote where it was stated that Dr. Hasley stood in a base that could withstand such an explosion.


 * The question is how the hell the yield went up so far to 750 gigatons. Did someone obtain it from the Nova nukes? If there is no clear source on this, then the original research should be cut drastically from this article, as it maintains confusion more than anything else.

It's just more asshats trying to think they are funny, the page has been returned to to its previous state. Durandal-217 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is a yield of 20 Megatons stated for a Shiva warhead?207.200.116.69 03:52, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Boom!
Just dropping a message there. I don't post nor read much this 'pedia, but I happened to find the following reference in "Halo - In Death's Grey Land". One of those nuclear devices, the Shivas, was transported by a Longsword. The yield was stated as being 30 megatons. --Mister Oragahn 16:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT: don't bother folks, I just got told it's fanon stuff. It's probably better that way in fact. (this is a free pre-made argument for anyone who brings this source forth by the way, feel free to copy! :) --Mister Oragahn 22:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)