Theoretical question.

The Next Generation
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

KuvahMagh wrote:...We didn't see any ships protecting Vulcan on the show but to suggest that a major world is under threat of an invasion without Starfleet having deployed anything in response is like saying that I don't see any tigers in my living room so they must not exist.
Like my analogy about perspective and existance: " Since I've never personally been to Japan, and seen it for myself, it may not even exist." Seeing something for yourself is the ultimate proof, but denying the existance of something you haven't seen for yourself is illogical.

...sorry, I went all Zen there for a minute.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
KuvahMagh wrote:...We didn't see any ships protecting Vulcan on the show but to suggest that a major world is under threat of an invasion without Starfleet having deployed anything in response is like saying that I don't see any tigers in my living room so they must not exist.
Like my analogy about perspective and existance: " Since I've never personally been to Japan, and seen it for myself, it may not even exist." Seeing something for yourself is the ultimate proof, but denying the existance of something you haven't seen for yourself is illogical.

...sorry, I went all Zen there for a minute.
I have noticed part of the obstacles here in discussions is that we don't have a set rulebook for canon. Everyone picks and chooses, pretty much. Some people say if something is logical then it must be the most likely explanation even if we never saw it in canon, some people say if something is ever seen in canon (even if contradicted in other canon) that it must be universally canon, and likewise if they didn't see it.

It's like temporal paradoxes... very good at creating headaches.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

Yes, but Bishop Berkely never did stand in front of that train, did he? :P

Sorry, I know that's not helpful. I just couldn't resist.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Duskofdead wrote:I have noticed part of the obstacles here in discussions is that we don't have a set rulebook for canon. Everyone picks and chooses, pretty much. Some people say if something is logical then it must be the most likely explanation even if we never saw it in canon, some people say if something is ever seen in canon (even if contradicted in other canon) that it must be universally canon, and likewise if they didn't see it.
The rules for canon are that all live-action Trek is included, while all non-live action Trek (including TAS, novels, games, etc) isn't. If two pieces of data contradict each other, then we either discard one if there's a preponderance of evidence to the contrary (Paris' idiotic "faster than light, no left or right" ditty, for example), or if there's no clear preponderence then we come up with a theory to reconcile them (for example the "maximum warp" speeds calculable from WNOHGB and "Q Who?" - the former is the theoretical maximum, while the latter is a realistic long-term speed.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Duskofdead wrote:I have noticed part of the obstacles here in discussions is that we don't have a set rulebook for canon. Everyone picks and chooses, pretty much. Some people say if something is logical then it must be the most likely explanation even if we never saw it in canon, some people say if something is ever seen in canon (even if contradicted in other canon) that it must be universally canon, and likewise if they didn't see it.
The rules for canon are that all live-action Trek is included, while all non-live action Trek (including TAS, novels, games, etc) isn't. If two pieces of data contradict each other, then we either discard one if there's a preponderance of evidence to the contrary (Paris' idiotic "faster than light, no left or right" ditty, for example), or if there's no clear preponderence then we come up with a theory to reconcile them (for example the "maximum warp" speeds calculable from WNOHGB and "Q Who?" - the former is the theoretical maximum, while the latter is a realistic long-term speed.
Out of curiosity, then, was it ever discussed and "reconciled" that in "Q Who" and "Best of Both Worlds", the term EM field was used for the Borg (to my knowledge their "shields" were never mentioned at all)... and this later morphed into "shields" in First Contact and Voyager? It sounds like a minor difference as if they could just be alternate terms for the same thing but I think technically speaking they're very different things. (My personal guess is that the term morphed in order to make it plausible that Federation weapons could "wear down" Borg defenses, i.e. they just have "really really strong shields" as opposed to an impenetrable EM field.. whereas in the first two episodes, they were prevented from having any effect at all basically.)
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Duskofdead wrote:Out of curiosity, then, was it ever discussed and "reconciled" that in "Q Who" and "Best of Both Worlds", the term EM field was used for the Borg (to my knowledge their "shields" were never mentioned at all)... and this later morphed into "shields" in First Contact and Voyager? It sounds like a minor difference as if they could just be alternate terms for the same thing but I think technically speaking they're very different things. (My personal guess is that the term morphed in order to make it plausible that Federation weapons could "wear down" Borg defenses, i.e. they just have "really really strong shields" as opposed to an impenetrable EM field.. whereas in the first two episodes, they were prevented from having any effect at all basically.)
I don't think the specific terms were eve discussed, but I think it's a safe bet that the terminology refers to the specific type of shield - with those used by the Borg being EM-based rather than gravitationally-based. Certainly they can't be literally "impenetrable", but merely appear so because Starfleet weapons aren't strong enough to do noticeable damage, especially once they've been optimised.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Post by Sionnach Glic »

Blackstar wrote:I thought that the Dominion was close to earth a few times during the war, and they would've moved ships to defend Earth.
Yes, and? When the Dominion wasn't close to Earth, they would have moved ships away from Earth to the front lines. Given that the attack on Earth was a complete surprise, we can assume that the Dominion fleet was not close enough to Earth for it to be considered at risk.
Not to mention their shipyards would be pumping new ships out at a higher rate and I'm sure that if it has guns and engines(and other bare essentials) they'll probably launch to defend earth.
How many ships can the yards produce? Who's to say that the ships there were anywhere near completed? Heck, even if they were a week away from launching, there probably wouldn't even be any crew on them.
And in peacetime there would be little reason to defend Earth
True, but there'd still be more ships around it.
1) There's no war, so forces protecting rear areas don't have to be redeployed to the front lines.
2) Pure military ships would be poorly utilised on science missions, so would likely remain on defensive duty.
3) The shipyards are vital areas that would merit a defence force even during peacetime.
4) Earth is the capital, so would merit a defence force even during peacetime.
5) To reasure civilians of the unbeatable might of their military, which can be quite important for a government.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's other reasons.
We can no more assume that then we can assume the device can be fired under cloak.
Actualy, we can.
1) The Scimitar needed to deploy 'targeting wings' to aim the device at the Enterprise. Why would you need to aim a weapon that can't be foccused in one area?
2) Shinzon didn't plan on killing himself. When the device fired it would have killed all aboard the Scimitar unless it was unidirectional.

From that, we can conclude that the device can be focused.
They probably had test versions of this weapon or at least proof of concept versions that would give them some idea on how to control the bomb's reaction. When playing with something that dangerous you'd want to test it on a small scale.
And why would Shinzon give these things to the Romulan military? You do also reaslise that there's a lot of diference between a prototype and the eventual version?
The civilians would never support a leader who personally led an attack that killed innocent civilians.
Funny. Populations throughout history have followed their tyranical overlords, even when there are massive casulaties that reach into the millions among their own population. What makes you think that the Romulans are suddenly going to have a revolution just because one or two other people died?
The Romulans have a supiriority complex and tend to look down on other species so xenocide would've been relativly minor to a few hundred innocent deaths
Superiority complex =/= willing to commit xenocide. By all means, show me where the Romulans ever happily wiped out an entire race without so much as having second thoughts.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

And in peacetime there would be little reason to defend Earth
True, but there'd still be more ships around it.
1) There's no war, so forces protecting rear areas don't have to be redeployed to the front lines.
2) Pure military ships would be poorly utilised on science missions, so would likely remain on defensive duty.
3) The shipyards are vital areas that would merit a defence force even during peacetime.
4) Earth is the capital, so would merit a defence force even during peacetime.
5) To reasure civilians of the unbeatable might of their military, which can be quite important for a government.[/quote]

Regarding #5, as "unrealistic" as it is to the military thinkers here, I simply find that an unplausible reason in the case of the Federation. I know that's an element of Trek that the military/political history buffs reject somewhat as fantasy but in Trek, the Federation doesn't bully, intimidate or scare its populace into compliance. Especially in the case of Earth, which prides itself on not being militarized and is referred to as paradise (DS9.)

Ships are there for non-military purposes as well. At the very least we know ships are kept in systems which have Starfleet training facilities because command-geared cadets man decommissioned starships as part of their training (DS9.)
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Post by Sionnach Glic »

Regarding #5, as "unrealistic" as it is to the military thinkers here, I simply find that an unplausible reason in the case of the Federation. I know that's an element of Trek that the military/political history buffs reject somewhat as fantasy but in Trek, the Federation doesn't bully, intimidate or scare its populace into compliance. Especially in the case of Earth, which prides itself on not being militarized and is referred to as paradise (DS9.)
You don't have to be a military dictatorship to have such displays. Citizens like to know they're protected. What better way to ensure happiness among the populace by showing them powerful starships in orbit, ready to drive off any invaders? The desire to be protected is a fundamental part of human nature. Unless the Federation engages in brainwashing, that desire would remain.
Ships are there for non-military purposes as well. At the very least we know ships are kept in systems which have Starfleet training facilities because command-geared cadets man decommissioned starships as part of their training (DS9.)
Quite true, I think that further backs up my point that there'd be more ships around Earth during peacetime.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
Blackstar the Chakat
Banned
Posts: 5594
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm

Post by Blackstar the Chakat »

How many ships can the yards produce? Who's to say that the ships there were anywhere near completed? Heck, even if they were a week away from launching, there probably wouldn't even be any crew on them
We've seen ships capable of fighting with minimal crew. Even in the 23rd century a jury rigged system allowed the E-nil to fight in STIII. Although that was limited, we've seen Voyager operate, even after heavy damage, with only one person on the bridge. All you seem to need would be one guy with the command codes. If the battle was desperate enough anything near compleation will probably join the battle. If it was going bad enough.
Actualy, we can.
1) The Scimitar needed to deploy 'targeting wings' to aim the device at the Enterprise. Why would you need to aim a weapon that can't be foccused in one area?
2) Shinzon didn't plan on killing himself. When the device fired it would have killed all aboard the Scimitar unless it was unidirectional.

From that, we can conclude that the device can be focused
1) They didn't aim, they opened and happened to have the Enterprise right in front of it already.
2) It could create a burst starting from the wings and spreading outward from the ship.

From that we can conclude that your evidence is circumstantial.
And why would Shinzon give these things to the Romulan military? You do also reaslise that there's a lot of diference between a prototype and the eventual version?
That wasn't my point. I was explaining why the 'bomb' in the senate room was more controlled then a burst from the Scimitar
Funny. Populations throughout history have followed their tyranical overlords, even when there are massive casulaties that reach into the millions among their own population. What makes you think that the Romulans are suddenly going to have a revolution just because one or two other people died?
No, I'm suggesting they would have a revolution if a few hundred died, because if the Scimitar's aim, assuming the weapon wasn't omni-directional, was off by a few meters it wouldn't even hit the room. Could wipe out innocent people in the street.
Superiority complex =/= willing to commit xenocide. By all means, show me where the Romulans ever happily wiped out an entire race without so much as having second thoughts.
They enslaved the Remans without a second thought. Many want to wipe out the Vulcans. While some of them may not like it, I don't think too many will cry over the destruction of the human race.
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by stitch626 »

From that we can conclude that your evidence is circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence has won many a court case.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Post by Sionnach Glic »

We've seen ships capable of fighting with minimal crew. Even in the 23rd century a jury rigged system allowed the E-nil to fight in STIII. Although that was limited, we've seen Voyager operate, even after heavy damage, with only one person on the bridge. All you seem to need would be one guy with the command codes. If the battle was desperate enough anything near compleation will probably join the battle. If it was going bad enough.
Quite true. Though, as I pointed out, this still assumes that the ship be in any workable condition. Do you seriously think they'd fuel up the reactor until it was ready to depart? Of course not, doing so would be incredibly stupid. Therefore, even if you have a full crew aboard, it's not going to be doing anything but act as a target.
1) They didn't aim, they opened and happened to have the Enterprise right in front of it already.
The mere presence of targetting wings implies that the device can be aimed.
2) It could create a burst starting from the wings and spreading outward from the ship.
And that would be a foccused burst of radiation, thus proving my point that it can be foccused, and therefore aimed.
That wasn't my point. I was explaining why the 'bomb' in the senate room was more controlled then a burst from the Scimitar
Eh?
You said that the military commanders wouldn't accept civilian casualties, as it would show Shinzon as being unpredictable.
I point out that the device was far from predictable.
You say that he may have given them prototypes to test out.
I ask why he would even bother with that.
You now reply that you weren't in fact talking about civilian casualties at all.

I think you went off track there a bit.
No, I'm suggesting they would have a revolution if a few hundred died, because if the Scimitar's aim, assuming the weapon wasn't omni-directional, was off by a few meters it wouldn't even hit the room. Could wipe out innocent people in the street.
Where the hell did I ever suggest the Scimitar firing at the Senate? :?

Anyway, history disproves even this argument again. Colateral damage had been a major thing since the invention of the cannon, and leaders shelled their own cities numerous times. Yet despite that, there was no mass outcry or calls for revolution.
They enslaved the Remans without a second thought.
And? Slavery =/= willing to casualy commit genocide.
Many want to wipe out the Vulcans.
So? Many Americans want to nuke the Middle East. Does that mean the US government is just fine with genocide?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

You don't have to be a military dictatorship to have such displays. Citizens like to know they're protected. What better way to ensure happiness among the populace by showing them powerful starships in orbit, ready to drive off any invaders? The desire to be protected is a fundamental part of human nature. Unless the Federation engages in brainwashing, that desire would remain.
That was the same philosophy behind having the armed security guards conducting blood tests on Earth streets. And the citizens were uncomfortable with it.
Blackstar the Chakat
Banned
Posts: 5594
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm

Post by Blackstar the Chakat »

Quite true. Though, as I pointed out, this still assumes that the ship be in any workable condition. Do you seriously think they'd fuel up the reactor until it was ready to depart? Of course not, doing so would be incredibly stupid. Therefore, even if you have a full crew aboard, it's not going to be doing anything but act as a target.
Okay, point for you
And that would be a foccused burst of radiation, thus proving my point that it can be foccused, and therefore aimed
Or that I meant a massive burst like an explosion, with the Scimitar being in the eye of the storm so to speak and being immune to harm...from it's own weapon at least.
The mere presence of targetting wings implies that the device can be aimed.
or they were just emiters
Eh?
You said that the military commanders wouldn't accept civilian casualties, as it would show Shinzon as being unpredictable.
I point out that the device was far from predictable.
You say that he may have given them prototypes to test out.
I ask why he would even bother with that.
You now reply that you weren't in fact talking about civilian casualties at all
No, I said Shinzon had his own prototypes, knew that the smaller weapon would be more predicatable then the larger versions. He would need prototypes so that he has some clue what he's building into the Scimitar. Afterall they didn't just shove nuclear reactors into Navy vessels, they had prototype reactors to figure out the pros and cons, and how to use it properly. Otherwise we'd have had a lot more sailors who suffered from radiation poisining. And I'm saying that's related to the civilian casualties but not directly.
Where the hell did I ever suggest the Scimitar firing at the Senate?
Well, I think you suggested using the Scimitar's weapon rather then the sneak-the-bomb-in trick we saw in the movie.
Anyway, history disproves even this argument again. Colateral damage had been a major thing since the invention of the cannon, and leaders shelled their own cities numerous times. Yet despite that, there was no mass outcry or calls for revolution.
Well, this is a different species and culture where that might not be as true, but I see your point.
So? Many Americans want to nuke the Middle East. Does that mean the US government is just fine with genocide?
Well if the US government was taken over by a dictatator with an ego the size of Texes and a score to settle then, probably yes.
User avatar
KuvahMagh
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:30 am
Location: Canada

Post by KuvahMagh »

So? Many Americans want to nuke the Middle East. Does that mean the US government is just fine with genocide?
I hate to point this out but Humanity has gone along with quite a few Genocides, including the US and I'm not talking about ancient History. Even when we know what is happening we still do too little to stop it, Somalia, a few troops were killed in a botched attack, we ran. Rwanda, 11 soldiers died because of UN rules which were forced onto them by the US and French Government which allowed them to be killed, we ran. The ongoing problems in Darfur...
Well if the US government was taken over by a dictatator with an ego the size of Texes and a score to settle then, probably yes.
On a side note, nice Jab at Bush there...
There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
-Elie Wiesel

Dreaming in Color Living in Black and White, Sitting in a Grey Day Leaning on a Bright New Tomorrow.
-Billy Ray Cyrus
Post Reply