Star Trek Earth vs Nature's Fury

[Duskofdead]

Cool so we agree it's plausible for something to be shielded, even by a strong shield, and still take some residual or dampened level of damage. I thought this was pretty much situation normal in Trek but a couple of people expressed doubt so I wondered if I was the only one who thought that.

So do we think it's more likely that Earth or at least the SF HQ area has a shield, or that Breen weapons are really pathetically weak?

[Captain Seafort]

So do we think it's more likely that Earth or at least the SF HQ area has a shield, or that Breen weapons are really pathetically weak?

Pathetically weak weapons - to the extent that it's unlikely any capital ships made it in range of Earth, and the damage seen was inflicted by fighters. This is based on the fact that I can't recall a single incident of a theatre shield in Trek - we've only ever seen them on starships, or as prison security ("Dagger of the Mind", "Whom Gods Destroy", ST6).

I'm of the opinion that the "bleedthrough" we observe elsewhere is a result of feedback through the shield generators/projectors, which wouldn't cause the impact craters we see in "The Changing ace of Evil".

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed, it seems unlikely that Earth has a shield. The lack of any serious damage can probably be atrbuted to the Breen's weak weaponary, and the fact that they'd have been a bit busy taking on whatever spatial defences were lying around to concentrate their full fire on it.

[Mikey]

I'm of the opinion that the "bleedthrough" we observe elsewhere is a result of feedback through the shield generators/projectors, which wouldn't cause the impact craters we see in "The Changing ace of Evil".

True - and feedback would help explain the non-local and generic damage we often see aboard a ship resulting from weapons fire.

[Duskofdead]

If you two are correct then why was this attack hailed as a success? Your theory assumes they never even got a clear shot, basically, and maybe just some weak fighters ever made it down near the planet. Shouldn't this have been widely regarded as a pathetic, easily rebuffed attempt at an offensive?

[Captain Seafort]

Because of the psychological impact. It was effectively a 24th century Doolittle raid, where the very fact that Starfleet Command itself had been attacked far outweighed the insignificant physical damage inflicted.

[Monroe]

So since Trek more than likely doesn't have planetary shields only radiation innoculation and evacuation would save people's lives if a Gamma Ray burst happened close by.

But an important factis that the nearest star capable of doing that is 8000 light years away. Far enough that it would only destroy a lot of the ozone and not end all life on the planet.

[Captain Seafort]

Plus they'd have something like eight millenia to prepare for it.

[Monroe]

lol assuming it didn't happen 7.999 millenia ago.

[Duskofdead]

So since Trek more than likely doesn't have planetary shields only radiation innoculation and evacuation would save people's lives if a Gamma Ray burst happened close by.

But an important factis that the nearest star capable of doing that is 8000 light years away. Far enough that it would only destroy a lot of the ozone and not end all life on the planet.

Oh there have definitely been planetary or at least planet-bound shields; the only question is whether Starfleet employs shields in defense of Federation planets or key Starfleet buildings based on planets. There have been numerous instances of away teams unable to beam up/down to a planet based on a shield being raised, and likewise the Dominion ketrecel white station based on an asteroid used a shield large enough not only to completely encompass the station but nearby ships. The Dominion starbase on Trelka V likewise had a shield grid, and was based on a planet, and the asteroid-based power generator for Cardassian ODP's was shielded.

The idea that "it can only have a shield if it moves in space or has a warp drive" is very definitely amply disproven in the Trek universe. There is just a lack of proof (at least from what I can dredge up and recall at will here) that Starfleet uses shields to protect any planet-bound assets. I honestly can't think of any sensible or reasonable explanation as to why they wouldn't, especially in the case of Starfleet Headquarters on Earth. Knowing that there are enemies that can cloak or in other ways conceal their approach, high population civilian planets would seem like enormous liabilities if the only thing capable of protecting them whatsoever is a nearby fleet. Even a single stray or lucky shot could do devastating damage on a planet's surface if planets have no capability of shielding whatsoever, even critical buildings or areas.

I admit there's no solid proof, at least none that I can specifically recall (it would not surprise me if a Federation colony sometime during the course of TNG had been mentioned to have raised its shields, or having shields) but it seems not only prudent but necessary in order to believe a serious defense of important populated worlds is possible at all. Starships could completely ignore enemy defensive forces (stationed fleet or orbitals), do their damage, and warp out. Certainly it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to do irreversible damage to an unshielded planet with a population like Earth's in terms of what level of firepower 24th century Trek ships are capable of.

[Monroe]

There's a big difference between shielding a compound and projecting a shield several hundred miles up that goes around the entire planet. I think the examples you speak of refer to a small area on the planet not the planet as a whole.

[Duskofdead]

There's a big difference between shielding a compound and projecting a shield several hundred miles up that goes around the entire planet. I think the examples you speak of refer to a small area on the planet not the planet as a whole.

Well it's fairly obvious that planets don't routinely leave a planet-wide shield up; it would be energy prohibitive and it would block all the frequent beaming we see to and from planet's surfaces. But here is my line of thinking:

1) There is evidence shields can be used on stationary, planet or asteroid bound locations.
2) There is nothing suggesting this is "more difficult" to implement than shields on a ship or station.
3) Certain planets and specifically certain facilities, such as Starfleet Headquarters, are prime military targets.
4) It would make sense, and be well within the realm of Starfleet's capabilities, to establish at least partial defensive shield grids around these critical sorts of installations.

And, applying it to the particular case in point I had mentioned, I think the idea that Starfleet had SOME form of protection for Starfleet Headquarters besides just weapons emplacements (which wouldn't be of much help since a single photon torpedo could level San Francisco) is born out by the sort of damage we saw (nothing close to an unshielded attack by a starship) and is more plausible than assuming the Breen were unable to get near Earth at all and had to send in suicide fighters who only did light damage. Heck there is no evidence that the Breen even have fighters.

[Tsukiyumi]

There's a big difference between shielding a compound and projecting a shield several hundred miles up that goes around the entire planet. I think the examples you speak of refer to a small area on the planet not the planet as a whole.

Well it's fairly obvious that planets don't routinely leave a planet-wide shield up; it would be energy prohibitive and it would block all the frequent beaming we see to and from planet's surfaces. But here is my line of thinking:

1) There is evidence shields can be used on stationary, planet or asteroid bound locations.
2) There is nothing suggesting this is "more difficult" to implement than shields on a ship or station.
3) Certain planets and specifically certain facilities, such as Starfleet Headquarters, are prime military targets.
4) It would make sense, and be well within the realm of Starfleet's capabilities, to establish at least partial defensive shield grids around these critical sorts of installations.

And, applying it to the particular case in point I had mentioned, I think the idea that Starfleet had SOME form of protection for Starfleet Headquarters besides just weapons emplacements (which wouldn't be of much help since a single photon torpedo could level San Francisco) is born out by the sort of damage we saw (nothing close to an unshielded attack by a starship) and is more plausible than assuming the Breen were unable to get near Earth at all and had to send in suicide fighters who only did light damage. Heck there is no evidence that the Breen even have fighters.

Agreed on all points. We've never seen Breen fighters. We have seen Breen ships that blew the Defiant apart after about twenty shots. Since we know the Defiant's armor is supposed to be a rather powerful, reliable defense, the Breen weapons couldn't have been a thousand or ten thousand times weaker than a photon torpedo.

Therefore, the fact that damage to San Francisco was relatively minor implies some sort of active defense. I think its a much more plausible theory than inventing Breen fighter craft or suggesting that their weapons are slightly more powerful than a modern Tomahawk missle when we've seen that they aren't.

[Monroe]

There's a big difference between shielding a compound and projecting a shield several hundred miles up that goes around the entire planet. I think the examples you speak of refer to a small area on the planet not the planet as a whole.

Well it's fairly obvious that planets don't routinely leave a planet-wide shield up; it would be energy prohibitive and it would block all the frequent beaming we see to and from planet's surfaces. But here is my line of thinking:

1) There is evidence shields can be used on stationary, planet or asteroid bound locations.
2) There is nothing suggesting this is "more difficult" to implement than shields on a ship or station.
3) Certain planets and specifically certain facilities, such as Starfleet Headquarters, are prime military targets.
4) It would make sense, and be well within the realm of Starfleet's capabilities, to establish at least partial defensive shield grids around these critical sorts of installations.

And, applying it to the particular case in point I had mentioned, I think the idea that Starfleet had SOME form of protection for Starfleet Headquarters besides just weapons emplacements (which wouldn't be of much help since a single photon torpedo could level San Francisco) is born out by the sort of damage we saw (nothing close to an unshielded attack by a starship) and is more plausible than assuming the Breen were unable to get near Earth at all and had to send in suicide fighters who only did light damage. Heck there is no evidence that the Breen even have fighters.

Agreed on all points. We've never seen Breen fighters. We have seen Breen ships that blew the Defiant apart after about twenty shots. Since we know the Defiant's armor is supposed to be a rather powerful, reliable defense, the Breen weapons couldn't have been a thousand or ten thousand times weaker than a photon torpedo.

Therefore, the fact that damage to San Francisco was relatively minor implies some sort of active defense. I think its a much more plausible theory than inventing Breen fighter craft or suggesting that their weapons are slightly more powerful than a modern Tomahawk missle when we've seen that they aren't.

Even if this shield existed it still doesn't mean Earth had a shield Like Rochey and I have pointed out there's no planetary wide shield employed by the Federation. Gamma Ray Burst > Federation. But also like I said Gamma Ray bursts ahve been over played by the media. The nearest possible one is 8k lightyears away, too far to cause mass extinctions.

[Mikey]

Well, Tsu has convinced me. If we have to make something up to explain the impotence of the Breen attack, then shields over San Fran is the least implausible thing to make up.