Aren't terms like "unbreakable" and "immovable" highly subjective? By that, I mean that unless god or something similar said, "Adamantium is unbreakable," we only know that it is based on the fact that no one can break it -- until someone can.

How exactly didn't that trick work? Wolverine was taken completely out of the fight and he would have probably died had he not been rescued by the Starjammers.

Also, I think I remember he was thrown into orbit. I doubt he could survive escape velocity or that he could possibly endure in space.

************************************************************ ***********
dude i was joking,..sheesshhh!!!!!!

> I like how there's a post showing an example of adamantium being broken, followed by a post stating that it cannot be broken.

The original entry in the Handbook said both that (paraphrased) "once set, only a molecular reorganizer can change its shape/break it/whatever it" and that "a substantial mass of adamantium could withstand a direct hit from a nuclear bomb."  The handbook also said that Captain America's shield is stronger than adamantium, if I recall correctly -- and so it goes.  And even that thing has been broken: Once by an errant blast by the Beyonder; the other time, by a mighty whack from Odin-powered Thor.  Both merely physical attacks, as far as I can tell.

I take "unbreakable" the same way I do "unstoppable," "unlimited," "infinite" and other such terms in comics: With a bag of salt.  If a bomb went off that annihilated the universe -- all suns, planets, black holes, etc. -- would Wolverine's skeleton remain?  I don't think so.  Everything has its limit.  Whether Superman's strength can exceed the limit of adamantium -- is anyone's guess.

There have been in-continuity instances of characters breaking adamantium.  Supposedly, Marvel put out a memo to writers that retconned all such instances as instances of secondary adamantium being broken -- but that isn't actually part of any comic, so it's apocryphal, I think.  Before and after this "retcon," it has been stated that certain characters have the power, or potential power, to break adamantium (like Cyclops, for instance, I believe).

Most recently, Iron Man ripped through a clone of his suit that was coated in adamantium.  And, seven or so years ago, during a Superman/Fantastic Four crossover, Superman took a lazer (paraphrased) "powerful enough to cut adamatium," according to young Franklin Richards, without even flinching.

_Frank Robert

The thing is -- in a work-for-hire universe, the editor in chief IS god. If there's an editorial edict handed down that Adamantium is absolutely unbreakable, then it is. If editorial decides that "just this once, it's breakable" then that is true. That it should have REMAINED unbreakable to prevent abuse, well I can see the argument for that.

It's always the case with rules like these that there's at least ONE guy who comes along and starts needling away at the rule, arguing that an exception can be made for him (and only him.) It gives them validation as "Original" (no one has ever broken adamantium before!) and crowns them as winners of a "pissing contest."

I've got nothing against Brubaker, but when not even Bucky is "Bucky dead" anymore, that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just as an example of a similar thing. (No one has ever resurrected Bucky before!)

QUOTE: (No one has ever resurrected Bucky before!)

And in a few years it may be "revealed" that the Winter Soldier was a Bucky clone created by the Soviets from the dead Bucky's DNA in a misguided attempt to learn the secrets of the Super-Soldier Formula. (Which Bucky never received).

In the real world, yes. In superhero comics, no. At least, they should not be.

QUOTE: If Superman can move planets I don't see how he could not be able to easily break or bend any metal.

Superman hasn't been powerful enough to move planets since the first crisis.