Phase "cloak" shouldn't really have violated Fed/R

[Alyeska]

With this thread, I think Admiral_K is bordering on VI territory.

This isn't the first thread he has done such things.

[Admiral_K]

On the other hand, you could also say that it is just that Picard and company are too honest, and unaware of the euphemisms of the 20th century.

For instance, there is some kind of rule saying that aircraft carriers can't cross the Bosporus. The Soviets, unfortunately, had to build theirs in some place called Nikolayev Shipyard, which means they must pass the Bosporus.

What do they do? They rename it into "Tactical Aviation Cruiser" and all of a sudden, it is OK. But come on, let's face it, how is the Kuznetsov not a carrier? It takes off jets, it lands jets. It performs the functions of a carrier (including flagship functions.) It also does some work of a cruiser, of course, since Soviet carrie ... urr "tactical aviation cruisers" have plenty of firepower themselves.

It is probably a moral violation, but it does fit in to the "letter-of-the-law" and can get past on a technicality.

Similarily, I would think it possible for the Federation to develop an euphemism for a phase or even a full blown Romulan style cloak that would "sneak" it pass the treaty. Picard may not even know the precise terms of the treaty, only the generalities. Without knowing exactly what the treaty said, Picard would never know for sure whether the phase-cloak or any other cloak can sneak pass or not.

OK, evidence that Picard might only know the generalities. Try Episode 172, when apparently Nechayev had to tell Picard about the new treaty with the Cardassians. It might be possible the same would apply for the treaty with the cloak.

Come to think of it, which dolt signed that stupid treaty anyway? Unless they are really being creamed, there is no reason to arbitrarily and unilaterally destroy one whole potential arm of progress. Even if you don't intend a cloak fleet, building your own cloaking devices can easily allow you to see the finer engineering flaws inherent in such a device, and device counters, which would well be useful against other nations' cloaks with similar engineering limitations.

This is one of the few people to read this to actually "get" what I was saying. Since it doesn't operate the way a standard cloaking device does, it may very likely could've been allowed by the treaty.

Servo talking with you as a waste of time while you continue to state your oppinions as if they were fact.

And Aleskya, after the way you slinked away from the phaser debate when I presented evidence damning to your contention I wouldn't be so quick to jump in with my 2 cents.

[Admiral_K]

BTW, nice fucking moderator abuse. I ofcourse susepect Aleskya, since he can't beat me with his argument resorts to childish post altering antics

[Alyeska]

BTW, nice fucking moderator abuse. I ofcourse susepect Aleskya, since he can't beat me with his argument resorts to childish post altering antics

Actually moderator abuse would be altering what you said. I did not do that.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, nice fucking moderator abuse. I ofcourse susepect Aleskya, since he can't beat me with his argument resorts to childish post altering antics

I saw that post earlier today, and it was "commented" as soon as you posted it. Rather curious, considering your attempt to pretend Alyeska did it... was this an inept attempt to frame him for doing that which you know perfectly well is only permitted in the Hall of Shame?

[Admiral_K]

BTW, nice fucking moderator abuse. I ofcourse susepect Aleskya, since he can't beat me with his argument resorts to childish post altering antics

I saw that post earlier today, and it was "commented" as soon as you posted it. Rather curious, considering your attempt to pretend Alyeska did it... was this an inept attempt to frame him for doing that which you know perfectly well is only permitted in the Hall of Shame?

I hope you are joking. I didn't even notice the comments the first time around which is why I noted them in a second post as opposed to the first. To be honest, if they weren't in red I may not have noticed them at all. If it were commented as soon as I posted it, I can only conclude that whoever did it jumped right on it.

Looking at the moderators being Stravo, Enlightenment, and Aleskya, and the fact that I soundly destroyed Aleskya's feeble claim that you can't possible be very accurate on a phaser rifle without some kind of auto targeting system, logical deduction lead me to conclude that he is the prime suspect.

I could be wrong of course. I don't know if other moderators can come in here and moderate posts. Although to my knowledge none of them would have reason to. And I suppose you could have done it mike, but I think if you had a problem with my statement you would've been direct and to the point rather then trying to be cute like this jackass did.

It's not really a big deal. Just rather childish. A decent flame war can be fun, but when you have abusive moderators it takes the fun out of it for everyone.

[Darth Wong]

Are you saying that Alyeska jumped on it quickly enough that it was commented before I saw it? I suppose that's possible. But really, that's something we're only supposed to do in the HoS, which is why it was created.

Perhaps Aly got a little pissed off at your Wall of Ignorance; I haven't paid much attention to this thread myself, but I can't understand what all the fuss is about. A cloaking device is any device which performs the function of cloaking; the precise manner of how it goes about doing it is not relevant.

[Sothis]

This is one of the few people to read this to actually "get" what I was saying. Since it doesn't operate the way a standard cloaking device does, it may very likely could've been allowed by the treaty.

Servo talking with you as a waste of time while you continue to state your oppinions as if they were fact.

And Aleskya, after the way you slinked away from the phaser debate when I presented evidence damning to your contention I wouldn't be so quick to jump in with my 2 cents.

Admiral K, it does not matter how it behaves, or what the physics of it are, or even what the original intent of the phasing device was. The important thing is the result, and the result is, it hides the ship. For all intents and purposes, it cloaksthe ship from enemy sensors.

Obviously it doesn't behave like a Romulan cloak, but then, who is to say that a Klingon cloak functions in the same way as a Romulan cloak? Perhaps if the Federation were to install Klingon cloaking devices, they could argue they'd found a way around the treaty? (Obviously, they couldn't do that, for a cloak is a cloak in the most important thing that matters- the result of what it does.)

[Alyeska]

Are you saying that Alyeska jumped on it quickly enough that it was commented before I saw it? I suppose that's possible. But really, that's something we're only supposed to do in the HoS, which is why it was created.

Call me speedy, I edited his post. Since you want this in the HOS only, I shall refrain from doing it again.

[Darth Servo]

This is one of the few people to read this to actually "get" what I was saying. Since it doesn't operate the way a standard cloaking device does, it may very likely could've been allowed by the treaty.

IOW, you were trying to argue that because it wasn't exactly like a Romulan cloaking device, it should slide past on a technicality. The example of Soviet carriers got to slide by because the Russians had NO CHOICE but to send them through that particular area and all they did was change the name! Whats next? Will you try to argue that if the Feddies had invented a standard cloak but called it a "signal reduction field" the Romulans would have allowed it? Get real.

Servo talking with you as a waste of time while you continue to state your oppinions as if they were fact.

Speak for yourself. It is an OPINION that other phase cloaked ships would be able to detect phase cloaked ships. It is an OPINION that the cloak moves "phased" objects into another dimension/plane of existance/outside normal space. It is an OPINION that the Romulans didn't consider the thing a violation of the Treaty, even though everyone on the E-D including the Admiral explicitly agreed it was. It is an OPINION that just because the device wasn't identical to a Romulan cloak that it must not be a cloak.

Picard may or may not have known the precise wording of the treaty but its a pretty safe bet that the Admiral knew and he agreed that the phase cloak would violate the treaty.

You simply state that any facts you can't deal with are an "opinion" and that they should be ignored. YOU are the one trying to argue "technicalities" which is the halmark sign of a subjective opinion from legalistic minds trying to find a loophole. Technicalities are an opinion by definition. YOU are the one presenting opinions. The only evidence you have is the presence of the word "phase" in the name of the device and since virtually everything in TNG operates on phase and frequency, the name proves jack shit.

And Aleskya, after the way you slinked away from the phaser debate when I presented evidence damning to your contention I wouldn't be so quick to jump in with my 2 cents.

Which debate was this? Please provide a link so I can see this alleged evidence. If this debate is any indication, I'd say you're just being a sore loser. Again.

[Darth Servo]

A cloaking device is any device which performs the function of cloaking; the precise manner of how it goes about doing it is not relevant.

That's precisely what Admiral_K is arguing. The phase cloak accomplishes the feat of hiding the ship in a different way than Romulan cloaks do so it shouldn't be a violation of the treaty.

[Admiral_K]

Darth Servo, I am going to refrain from making any insults in this post because I think we suffer from a mis-communication more than anything else and I am goin to try and explain.

I wasn't arguing that it has "no characteristics or performance of a cloaking device". I was more or less arguing that based on the wording of the treaty, that the feds could have argued that it didn't violate the treaty by simply calling it a "phase inverter" ref The Next Phase.

I highly doubt that the treaty would simply have a blanket statement that says "no cloaking device" because that is far too simple a term. For example: If it said

"a device designed to mask emissions of a ship"

A phase cloak does not do this. The emissions are still there, and if you came upon it while phased yourself you most certainly would see them

"A device that bends lightwaves and sensor waves around itself so that it can't be detected"

A phase cloak does not do this. Rather the sensor beams pass right through it because it is out of phase with the normal universe.

"A device designed to avoid detection from sensors"

A phase cloak does not do this. It shifts it out of phase so it isn't technically "there" to begin with. Thats like saying a ship clear across the galaxy is "cloaked" because your sensors can't detect it.

My theory is this: Most any treaty has a loophole in it. Since this device did not opperate as a traditional cloaking device, there exists the distinct possibility that it is not banned by treaty.

That is what I am saying, and that is all I am saying.

On a related note,

The problem with the phase "cloak" is that it does not operate in a realistic fashion. As has been pointed out, if you are phased then yes people in the normal universe can't see you, but by the same token you shouldn't be able to see them. Many have blasted the episode The Next Phase because of this realism problem, the fact that Roe and Geordie could hear/see/breath while phased. If the phase inverter operated as it truly should, and the feds couldn't see anything in normal space, would you really even consider it a cloaking device?

[Admiral_K]

Whats next? Will you try to argue that if the Feddies had invented a standard cloak but called it a "signal reduction field" the Romulans would have allowed it? Get real.

I was saying that based on the wording of the treaty you could argue that ti was allowed.

Servo talking with you as a waste of time while you continue to state your oppinions as if they were fact.

Speak for yourself. It is an OPINION that other phase cloaked ships would be able to detect phase cloaked ships. It is an OPINION that the cloak moves "phased" objects into another dimension/plane of existance/outside normal space. It is an OPINION that the Romulans didn't consider the thing a violation of the Treaty, even though everyone on the E-D including the Admiral explicitly agreed it was. It is an OPINION that just because the device wasn't identical to a Romulan cloak that it must not be a cloak.
[/quote]

See above

Picard may or may not have known the precise wording of the treaty but its a pretty safe bet that the Admiral knew and he agreed that the phase cloak would violate the treaty.

Because they called it a phase cloak. If you don't call it that, then it isn't as clear cut. Again my argument that based on the wording of the treaty it could've been allowed.

You simply state that any facts you can't deal with are an "opinion" and that they should be ignored. YOU are the one trying to argue "technicalities" which is the halmark sign of a subjective opinion from legalistic minds trying to find a loophole. Technicalities are an opinion by definition. YOU are the one presenting opinions. The only evidence you have is the presence of the word "phase" in the name of the device and since virtually everything in TNG operates on phase and frequency, the name proves jack shit.

I am arguing, that based on the wording of the treaty, it could be allowed. Yes this is an argument of techincalities and legalities. That is what a treaty is. Yes I am trying to find a loophole. That is the whole point of the post. If you believe my only evidence is the word "phase" in the name, then go back and watch the Pegasus and The Next Phase.

None of us here knows the wording of the treaty. Therfore, for someone to say "NOPE IT IS DEFINATELY BANNED BY THE TREATY" is strictly their uninformed oppinion. I am arguing that it could be legal, not that it 100% would be.

And Aleskya, after the way you slinked away from the phaser debate when I presented evidence damning to your contention I wouldn't be so quick to jump in with my 2 cents.

Which debate was this? Please provide a link so I can see this alleged evidence. If this debate is any indication, I'd say you're just being a sore loser. Again.[/quote]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6&start=25

This one, and to sum things up there we have the following points of contention:

You say you can't possibly be accurate without a scope on a phaser "rifle" despite the fact that the Cardassian riffles explicitly do not have auto targeting, and do not have scopes.

I have contended that with training, you could use a phaser rifle. You then tried to twist that to mean "starfleet training" and point out that Garak didn't have starfleet training, therefore he shouldn't be accurate with a phaser rifle.

I then pointed out that Garak should be used to firing weapons without sights since Cardassian rifles apparently do not have this. And if he were used to a weapon without auto targeting, which had sights on it, then surely he would have used them if he needed them.

I rebutted your primary contention, that you needed an auto targeting device to hit with the phaser rifle if you aren't using the sight. You apparently dropped off the face of the Earth around that point.

[Alyeska]

And Aleskya, after the way you slinked away from the phaser debate when I presented evidence damning to your contention I wouldn't be so quick to jump in with my 2 cents.

I didn't slink away. I just see no point in debating with someone who has a thick skull and doesn't pay attention.

[Alyeska]

You say you can't possibly be accurate without a scope on a phaser "rifle" despite the fact that the Cardassian riffles explicitly do not have auto targeting, and do not have scopes.

Actually, the Cardassian weapon does have a sight of some sort.

I have contended that with training, you could use a phaser rifle. You then tried to twist that to mean "starfleet training" and point out that Garak didn't have starfleet training, therefore he shouldn't be accurate with a phaser rifle.

You contend that two seperate weapons with different firing axis can be fired reliably without a sight by someone only trained on one of them. You know nothing about aiming and firing a weapon.

I then pointed out that Garak should be used to firing weapons without sights since Cardassian rifles apparently do not have this. And if he were used to a weapon without auto targeting, which had sights on it, then surely he would have used them if he needed them.

I already showed the sight on the Cardassian weapon. Besides, do you have any onscreen evidence of the Cardassian weapon being used at range?

I rebutted your primary contention, that you needed an auto targeting device to hit with the phaser rifle if you aren't using the sight. You apparently dropped off the face of the Earth around that point.

You responded, yes, but I would not consider it a rebutal. I simply stopped posting because you, frankly, are an idiot.

[Admiral_K]

Actually, the Cardassian weapon does have a sight of some sort

If what you point out is indeed a "sight", then Garak should've been used to shooting a rifle with a sight and thus used the one that is available on his fed rifle. And don't tell me he is too stupid to not know it is there.

If you are used to shooting a weapon with a sight, and they give you a weapon with a sight on it you are going to use it even if they say "you don't need to though".

You contend that two seperate weapons with different firing axis can be fired reliably without a sight by someone only trained on one of them. You know nothing about aiming and firing a weapon

I'm sure Garak has had PLENTY of time over the years to learn how to fire a fucking fed phaser rifle. And we know the firing axis is adjustable, so I'm sure he could figure out how to set it at the angle he is acustomed to.

You have given absolutely no proof that you can't use a phaser "rifle" accurately at range without a scope. That is your chief contention for an "auto targeting system" which IIRC it is never stated to have.

Your appeal to your "expertise" doesn't apply because phaser rifles have virtually nothing in common with modern rifles. They have no kickback, have a visible tracer, and are not affected by wind.

[Ted C]

Why did the Federation agree to this treaty in the first place??

They must have been facing defeat at the hands of the Romulans. No nation has ever signed such a grotesquely one-sided treaty unless they had no choice.

Of course, the alternative is that they're gibbering cretins, which we probably can't rule out either

Well, there is the possibility that the Romulans gave up something of comparable value. It's hard to imagine what that would be though.

Edit (when did Editing get turned on?)

Hypothesis:
I suppose it's possible that the Romulans would only agree to the treaties banning subspace weapons, biogenic weapons, etc. if the Federation would agree not to pursue cloaking technology. If they were well ahead of the Federation in those fields, the Feds might have considered it a good trade.

[Alyeska]

If what you point out is indeed a "sight", then Garak should've been used to shooting a rifle with a sight and thus used the one that is available on his fed rifle. And don't tell me he is too stupid to not know it is there.

If you are used to shooting a weapon with a sight, and they give you a weapon with a sight on it you are going to use it even if they say "you don't need to though".

Funny though. The above proves that your statement about other weapons being able to be fired without sights is false. Why would Garak not use the sight on the Type-3? Lets quote what you said further down.

I'm sure Garak has had PLENTY of time over the years to learn how to fire a fucking fed phaser rifle

So, that would mean if said rifle had auto-targeting capabilities, Garak would know how to use it. Your words, not mine.

I'm sure Garak has had PLENTY of time over the years to learn how to fire a fucking fed phaser rifle. And we know the firing axis is adjustable, so I'm sure he could figure out how to set it at the angle he is acustomed to.

You have given absolutely no proof that you can't use a phaser "rifle" accurately at range without a scope. That is your chief contention for an "auto targeting system" which IIRC it is never stated to have.

Your appeal to your "expertise" doesn't apply because phaser rifles have virtually nothing in common with modern rifles. They have no kickback, have a visible tracer, and are not affected by wind.

This statement entire line of reasoning is very... ignorant. You know absolutely nothing about firing weapons. You do not know the importance of iron sights (or scopes). You make absurd claims that they are well trained trick shooters. You claim they use a tracer, ignoring that they often hit on the first shot. Also, recoil has nothing to do with firing a modern rifle and hitting with the first shot. Recoil makes every shot after the first less accurate.

You think its simpler to claim that Starfleet trains their "soldiers" to fire their weapons without sights, kinda like how trick shooters fire from the hip. This ignores the fact that the angles change, the distances and variables change, this requires YEARS of constant practice, and is, well, quite unreasonable.

Until you actually demonstrate actual knowledge on the subject, concession accepted.

Oh, BTW. Nice dodge on being called wrong. You shift the blame and try and hide from being called on your intial claim in this thread.

[Ted C]

Hmm... it would seem this thread has been derailed from the original subject.

[Alyeska]

Hmm... it would seem this thread has been derailed from the original subject.

IMO rather intentionally by Admiral_K in an attempt to remove his original claim out of the spot light.

[Admiral_K]

I stand by my original claim, that based on the wording of the treaty, this device could've slipped by.

Standard cloaking devices in ST work in a very specific way, and if the treaty was tailored towards that, then the phase "cloak" which operates in a very different way could've been technically legal.

If you can't see the possibility of that happening, then you obviously came in with pre-conceived notions that I won't be able to dispell.

You asked what I was talking about when I refered to your claim that fed rifles could auto target people. I answered you. I hardly think that is trying to "hide" my so-called "defeat".

[Ted C]

Why did the Federation agree to this treaty in the first place??

I keep thinking about this question, and I keep thinking that the Romulans must have agreed not to develop some kind of WoMD in return.

It would make sense for the Federation to go along with such a treaty, since cloaked Romulan ships would be able to very effectively threaten Federation population centers with such weapons. The would create a threat much like modern ballistic missile submarines, except the Federation lacked any kind of countermeasure; they couldn't get their own ships close enough to Romulan worlds without fighting through Romulan fleets, nor did they have any sort of "interstellar ballistic missile" to provide a counter-threat.

So the Romulans probably did have the Federation over a barrel of sorts.

[Ted C]

I stand by my original claim, that based on the wording of the treaty, this device could've slipped by.

The purpose of the treaty is to keep the peace, and it will fail if both parties aren't satisfied that the terms are being met.

The Romulans clearly considered the cloaking device on the Pegasus (a successful version of the interphase generator they were testing themselves in "The Next Phase") to be a violation of the treaty.

Consequently, this phase-cloak could only have "slipped by" if the Romulans lacked the military power and political will to object to it.

[Admiral_K]

I'm sure Garak has had PLENTY of time over the years to learn how to fire a fucking fed phaser rifle

So, that would mean if said rifle had auto-targeting capabilities, Garak would know how to use it. Your words, not mine.

Learning how to fire a weapon, and learning all of the settings that go with an auto targeting system are two different things. Regardless, he would've originally learned how to fire using a scope, therefore that would be what is most comfortable for him. There is absolutely no benefit from holding the weapon like that that you wouldn't get from looking down the barrel.

You have given absolutely no proof that you can't use a phaser "rifle" accurately at range without a scope. That is your chief contention for an "auto targeting system" which IIRC it is never stated to have.

Your appeal to your "expertise" doesn't apply because phaser rifles have virtually nothing in common with modern rifles. They have no kickback, have a visible tracer, and are not affected by wind.

This statement entire line of reasoning is very... ignorant. You know absolutely nothing about firing weapons. You do not know the importance of iron sights (or scopes). You make absurd claims that they are well trained trick shooters. You claim they use a tracer, ignoring that they often hit on the first shot. Also, recoil has nothing to do with firing a modern rifle and hitting with the first shot. Recoil makes every shot after the first less accurate.

Strawman

I know just as much as you do about firing beam weapons. I also know more than you think about firing rifles. If modern rifles could fire with a tracer, and if they didn't have recoil that would throw off successive shots, and weren't affected by the wind, then they most certainly COULD learn to be accurate with them at moderate distances even without sights, and certainly within the 40 meters we saw in your only example of ranged combat.

If you use a beam weapon that is unaffected by wind, and is essentially straight over the distance you are shooting, you can learn to eyeball their target.

If they had auto targeting systems, how do you explain the MISSESover such a relatively short distance, despite the lack of jaming equipment or cover for the Jem troops?

You think its simpler to claim that Starfleet trains their "soldiers" to fire their weapons without sights, kinda like how trick shooters fire from the hip. This ignores the fact that the angles change, the distances and variables change, this requires YEARS of constant practice, and is, well, quite unreasonable.

The only one claiming they were "trick shooters" is you. I don't think starfleet trains them to fire weapons without sights. I would attribute it to bad acting/directing. Common sense would teach them to learn to use the sights on their guns, so that even if their "auto target" feature, should they have one, failed they would be able to use their weapons accurately. Just because a few of them are holding their weapons like 1930's bank robbers doesn't mean that they can't learn to be accurate this way.

Poor technique doesn't prove the existence of auto targeting featrues. Poor techniques, when practiced over the years, can still provide effective results. If you need a real life example, there are many major league Baseball players who have strange batting stances or swings, yet they are very effective with them because they have used them over the years.

And please STOP comparing them to modern rifles. They have nothing in commen with them save for a slightly similar shape and the word "rifle". Better yet, you show how a phaser rifle is similar to a modern rifle and we can go from there. You keep trumpeting the "importance" of having a sight on a weapon so how about you explain why you need one ok?

Until you actually demonstrate actual knowledge on the subject, concession accepted.

No concession has been offered. Until you can demonstrate actual evidence that you can't accurately fire a PHASER rifle without sights, then your claim is unsubstantiated.

Oh, BTW. Nice dodge on being called wrong. You shift the blame and try and hide from being called on your intial claim in this thread.

My claim was that it could've been legal under the treaty. No one has disparaged that claim. It wasn't even made in all that seriousness or I would've gotten quotes etc. I was merely broaching the possibility.

Eventually, people with no more knowledge about the treaty than myself came in and tried to claim there was "no chance" when I knew damn well that there was.

[Darth Servo]

I stand by my original claim, that based on the wording of the treaty, this device could've slipped by.

And you accuse me of arguing based on opinions. YOU DON'T KNOW the wording of the treaty. PERIOD.

All your "theories" about what it might have said are pure speculation. Everyone on the E-D agreed that the phase cloak violated the treaty, INCLUDING ADMIRAL PRESSMAN. Pressman was the projects staunchest SUPPORTER. He knew the device would put his career in severe jeopardy. Pressman would be looking for any possible legalistic loophole. Did he do this? NO. If HE thinks it violates the treaty, then it almost certainly does.

Standard cloaking devices in ST work in a very specific way, and if the treaty was tailored towards that, then the phase "cloak" which operates in a very different way could've been technically legal.

Key words: Could have been. YOU DON'T KNOW THE WORDING OF THE TREATY. All these games you keep playing are pure sophistry. All we know about the treaty is that it prohibits Fed cloaking devices and the phase cloaks falls under that category. Stop trying to be a lawyer.

If you can't see the possibility of that happening, then you obviously came in with pre-conceived notions that I won't be able to dispell.

Anything's possible. Its possible that the E-D could spontaneously multiply and become two ships but there is no evidence that it can actually do so and a mountain of evidence against it. All the EVIDENCE we have points to the conclusion that you're simply full of shit.

You asked what I was talking about when I refered to your claim that fed rifles could auto target people. I answered you. I hardly think that is trying to "hide" my so-called "defeat".

I asked you for a thread link. You provided it. Thats all you needed to do. You did NOT need to re-open the discussion on this thread. Now get the thread back on topic.