Can DCEU Superman tank this?

First of all, Sokovia isn't even close to a inverted mountain.

Secondly, mass is mass. Sokovia explosion was internal and a chain reaction(Both of these make the feat easier). It was more similar to industrial blasting, which take down mountains with way less explosive force then nukes do.

If you think for one second that a W87 inside the part of Sokovia that was in the air wouldn't accomplish the exact same thing, at a bare minimum, then you are just wrong. I mean... its just basic science... Even Armageddon let you know whats up. You could send 1,000 nukes at an asteroid and have less effect then one internal nuke.

Now we have thor somehow magically Flying out of the explosion when it literally happened the same time he smacked it lol. This is insane shii going on here lmao

Oh wait, you were laughing about the island level DD comment above you. My bad.

@takenstew22:

Yes lol

He can likely survive, but he sure as hell isn't tanking it.

@deltahuman: How in the name of God does this apply to Sokovia? The explosion blew apart not just the city above it, but the entire landmass to chunks small enough to prevent an apocalypse. Heck, FRIDAY said it would vaporize the city and everything on it.

@the_gaurdian: My memory of MOS is pretty rough, but I don't recall any Island sized surface wipe. Perhaps the novel tells you how much is actually destroyed, but if not, I doubt it can be scaled. Do you know the size of the crater it made? If not, refer above. And the dust cloud is obviously useless. With that aside, scans of said mountain bust by WE?

Yes.

Easily that explosion was equivalent to about 21KT worth of power.

Age of Ultron FX director stated that the chunk of Sokovia was only 1.2 miles long and we know the blast Radius of Fat man the nuke used on Nagasaki was 1.5 miles.

Superman while having Kryptonite in his system survived a 475kt nuke which is about 22x more powerful than the Sokovia explosion so Superman walks away from it easy

@spidermanx7l:

If what happened to Sokovia is vaporisation then we need a new definition for vaporisation

Here's what actually happened. Earth of that volume obviously can't remain attached together into a single landmass when it flies miles above the ground. Ultron developed that vibranium magnetic core of some kind to keep the entire landmass together. Without Stark capping from down below, Thor's hit and the entire energy behind it would've just spread through the central vibranium spire, which would crack the landmass around it but not enough to destroy the magnetic vibranium tech spread across the entire landmass. This is exactly what Friday stated. So there would still be large chunks of earth falling down and it would still be catastrophic. When stark capped it, the energy from Thor didn't remain confined to the central spire, it spread throughout the landmass and destroyed the magnetic tech that held it together. You can literally see this happening on screen. The land mass then broke up into small enough chunks that couldn't cause global extinction. And that's what exactly happened. Watch the scene again, nothing was vaporized. The landsmass just broke apart into numerous harmless small fragments.

Now here's why it's not remotely comparable to a nuclear explosion. Mind you, we are not talking about total energy output. That could be greater or lesser than a standard nuclear bomb, but the way the energy was released was nothing like a nuke. When a nuke explodes on your face, you get hit with thermal radiation of millions of degrees for a split second and then hundreds of thousands of degrees for several seconds which culminates into a nuclear fireball. On top of that there's a pressure wave of double digit PSI and ionizing radiation. All that at your face. You are at the centre of it. Nothing of that sort happened in Sokovia. No nuclear fireball, no ionizing radiation. The majority of the energy went into the landmass and into cracking up the magnetic core. I mean there was a multi city block sized landmass to absorb that energy. Thor wasn't hit with a fireball or radiation of any kind. Much like a real life earthquake which could release energy comparable to thousands of nukes exploding together but that energy doesn't even sting you because the energy isn't released in a way comparable to a nuke. All Thor tanked from the hit was the blowback from the Vibranium. Remember, Vibranium doesn't absorb all the energy it gets hit with. It releases the part it can't absorb and some of that released energy was tanked by Thor. Some energy was released into the landmass too as the spire ran along the entire depth of the landmass. That's what happened and that's why Sokovia isn't remotely comparable to a nuke, regardless of the energy involved in the feat

He tanks

Basically this

The guidebook confirmed he's invulnerable so he nosells the explosion...

For the detractors;

invulnerable:

/ɪnˈvʌln(ə)rəb(ə)l/

adjective

impossible to harm or damage.

@loriazas said:

@deltahuman: Superman only took a fraction of the nuke. Most of it was absorbed by Doomsday

I am not quite sure where this started... but somewhere a long the way people started believing it.

But no. That isn't even remotely accurate.

Right, so the idea that Doomsday absorbed all of it, or most of it, is ridiculous. If that happened, we wouldn't have seen a explosion at all. Except we did see one that was miles in diameter and could be seen from the surface. Even if Doomsday had blocked that part, like people want to believe, then you would clearly see a pie slice of the sky that isn't covered in the explosion... but we don't see that either.

Arguing that he dampened the nuke down to a "fraction" of what someone would experience normally is just head cannon. Not how it works.

@Aristeaus: a nuke in space has no blast and is only radiation. Superman had no fear of taking a nuke in Dceu

He's reduced to atoms.

Incorrect. Starfish Prime.

Except we do see a blast, and even when doomsday is shown falling from the sky, we still see the blast, indicating that he did not indeed absorb it it or if any of it.

@ecoblitz: trying to argue that Thor tanked the sokovia explosion is trying to argue that Yelena tanked the helicopter explosion that destroyed Dreykov. He only took a part of the explosion, if something took the full explosion it was the vibranium core.

I see no reason why Superman wouldn't be able to tank what Thor tanks considering how they react to being thrown into buildings and boulders compared to each other. Thor's been bloodied by things Superman comes out unscathed of.

Not to mention this is a bait thread so I hate myself from even posting in this lol

some arguments in here stands on Thor tanked it so Clark could definitely tanks it when Thor was shown to tank far worse while Clark caps at nuke level of damage.

@loriazas:

Doomsdays never absorbs energy he absorbs damage. When Diana hit his leg it started to glow red if he had absorbed the power from her hit he would have never fell to begin with stop this fanfic headcannon. Not only that Superman was in a weakened state when he got hit with that nuke which is 22x more powerful than Sokovia anyways not to mention the core heat of a nuke gets hotter than the surface of the sun.

@lgh0stl:

No those are not the arguments and Superman had better durability feats than Thor anyways.

1- That chunk of Sokovia was only 1.2 miles wide which is the blast radius of a 21KT nuke.

2- Superman while having kryptonite in his body survived a 475kt Nuke which is 22x the power of that explosion and that’s not even mentioning that Nuke explosions get hotter than the surface of the sun and has insane amounts of radiation.

@moosixer: I was pointing out what SonofMadara said. Some people think that every single one of Thor's feat can be replicated by Clark just because they think that if Thor can do it then Clark should be able to do it.

It is not clear if it is 300kt or 475kt since it only says W87. Granted that it was the latter it detonates in space that could greatly lessen the damage it can produce.

Off the top of my head I am not sure there is a durability Feat for Thor that Clark can't replicate.

As for the yield, its likely much higher then that. The Nuke was modeled after Starfish Prime, an orbital nuclear detonation test. Even on the radar in BvS there is something called the Starfish threshold, which isn't a real thing.

Starfish prime was a 1.2MT nuke, and it was detonated half the distance away that Clark and Doomsday were, but the visuals are nearly identical.

This was Starfish prime. Looks familiar right?

Survives it, he's not dying from that.

@loriazas:

Nah. Superman already has a nuke+ level feat from Man of Steel. The World Engine no sold nuke level impact which flattened a mountain on the background. Superman one shotted it. He'd need to no sell nuke level impact forces to do that. Although Superman was KOed by the World Engine feat, it can be argued that he was weaker due to the Kryptonian environment. I've already explained what happened in Sokovia above. Superman would no sell that explosion

@Aristeaus: But it is in the movie that it was W87. I would not assume that it was Starfish Prime because it was not stated but I could assume that the W87 detonates as if it is in the atmosphere base on the visual.

If we going to accept that W87 in BvS is indeed Starfish Prime with same yield and everything base on the visual similarity. Then can we accept also that Thor was tanking the bifrost crystals hitting his head at speed MFTL? And Thor tanking the full force of a neutron star.

I only brought those up because Clark's high end durabilty feat caps at nuke level it could be the 475 kt or the 1.2MT but if we are going to compare this to some of Thor's high end feat this would pale in comparison.

It's not my fault that Superman doesn't have the feats to survive that, boy.

Tank what? Tank Thor’s hammer hit? Or standing where Thor was when the city blew up? Also what’s the definition of Tank that we are using?

@power_hunter:

Everything you say is wrong. You downplay everyone in DC and overhype everything in marvel I remember you said Antman was in a different tier than Superman and when people asked you how does Antman beat Superman you literally said he couldn’t that alone shows your bias

Superman no-sells. He already has several nuke-level feats. Thor is magnitudes below Superman in durability. This isn't remotely close. Superman's nuke feat is tiers higher than the Sokovia explosion.

@ecoblitz: Superman statues and slams Thor. He no-sells this laughable explosion.

This is way above the nuke, he gets vaped.

@sigmavamp: there is literally 0 need, want or positive (except MAYBE comedy to pass time) in trying to engage you so just move on.

Don't bring other threads to this one. I am open to debate. I just don't think Superman has done anything that proves he can replicate this feat. If you think otherwise, show me why.

He was a skeleton from simple nuke, which was detonated in space as well (much less potent). From this destruction there will be nothing left of him. Like it was with mother boxes.

@power_hunter:

I’ve already explained why this explosion is that equivalent to a 21kt nuke given its size and that’s minus the heat and radiation Superman easily survives this explosion since he survived a 475kt nuke while Kryptonite was in his body

@pirateangel:

Comparing this to the motherbox explosion is wild lol. Motherbox explosion literally would take out all life in earth this explosion of took out a 1.2mile land mass

Well, your reasoning is heavily mistaken.

1.-The fact that the blast of a 21kt nuke is as long as Sokovia doesn't mean it could replicate the explosion. That blast has the energy to vaporize and destroy buildings, which is not that impressive. The explosion of Sokovia sent the whole mass at hypersonic speeds. The energy to do that is crazy and it cannot be replicated by any nuke. There are numerous calcs on that.

2.-Superman didn't take the whole 475kt, only a portion. You can check my calc.

I'm assuming the explosion which he she should be able to survive rather comfortably but if he's hit with Thor's overcharged strike he gets K.O'ed.

It does say W87 in the movie. But the amount of references to Starfish, including the basically copy for copy visual make that unlikely. A 475KT nuke detonated twice as far away as a 1.2MT nuke wouldn't have identical visuals. We also don't exactly know why Superman was drained... you would think Heat wouldn't do anything to him given he is powered up by the sun only moments later.... so who knows.

Bifrost is its own bag of worms. Yeah Thor hit the shards, but he also has been stabbed by people that should be nearly infinitely weaker then the perceived effect. Bifrost also does like no damage to the environment for it being physical objects at MFTL speeds.

I will go ahead and stop you on the full force of a neutron star thing. You know damn well he didn't take the full force of a star. Taking that would mean the entire stars energy would be in the beam, which means the star itself wouldn't even be ignited. It was. It isn't possible for Etiri's statement to be factual.

But I see no reason why Clark couldn't replicate both of them. The star wouldn't hurt Clark... thats kinda obvious. Hes superman. The shards shouldn't hurt Clark. Hes never been pierced by anything outside of being weakened by Kryptonite. Remember that Loki also tanked shards too... are we to believe that Loki > Clark now?

@Aristeaus: Going on visual the feat seems impressive still doesn't change the fact that it is not starfish prime, the blast look similar but it is what was stated in the movie.

The Bifrost was capable of destroying a planet as was stated in Thor 1 and the main driving point of the third act, capable of beheading a dragon that can easily burrow through the ground.

Nidivallir is a dyson sphere that output the energy of the star let's say that Eitri's statement is not true and that it was only outputting a fraction of the star's energy it is still far greater than taking the heat of the nuke for less than a second since thor was taking it for a couple of minutes while holding the iris open.

Clark couldn't replicate both because he has no feats that is close to this, both your take on clark replicating the nidavellir feat and bifrost feat hangs on assumptions. Clark has no feat of tanking projectiles at MFTL and Clark has no feat of being healed by a neutron star except the sun. It is NFL to assume that Clark will heal from any star. You might say that Thor did it and he was hurt by much less, It true but still can't discount the fact that he still did it and Clark has no feat similar to those.

He starts crying