Star Trek BDZ

[Uraniun235]

One would start with the cities first to ensure a minimum number of escapees, and to maximize initial casualties. While these may not have been important considerations at the time, such measures might be desired if the order was given against, say, a Klingon planet where every extra second of survival for the cities means another chance for them to blast off a distress call or a warp-capable shuttle to alert the Klingon fleet. And if the Klingon fleet *did* arrive before the Order was completed and forced a starship to flee, by targeting the cities first a commander ensures he has done the most damage possible before leaving.

Granted I don't think a Constitution has the firepower needed to perform a BDZ, but Scotty targeting the cities first is not indicative that they lack the firepower to perform such an operation. (It *does* indicate they lack the firepower to immediately blow apart the planet, though.)

[Baron Mordo]

I seem to recall another episode, "Bread and Circuses," I think, where Scotty interrupted the power grid somehow. That could also play a part in any BDZ-like operation.

[SCVN 2812]

There was an episode in TOS where part of the atmosphere of a planet was blown off in an explosion. The ship even rattled so it can't be written off as a throwaway line.

Really the circumstances kind of define what destroy means. In DS9 its hard to say that destroy meant just wipe out the Founders will orbital bombardment since the mantle was mentioned. Then there's always the how part of it. About the only time we were given anything but the vague reference to destroy something was in the TOS ep where they targeted the cities. Die is Cast could very well be easily explained by technobabble weapons if you don't like the idea of Star Trek races able to destroy the crust and mantle of a planet through conventional means, especially since most of the major races specialize in doing things unconventionally.

[Darth Wong]

There was an episode in TOS where part of the atmosphere of a planet was blown off in an explosion. The ship even rattled so it can't be written off as a throwaway line.

*yawn* Did you know that every asteroid or meteor which hits the Earth's atmosphere blows some of it off?

Really the circumstances kind of define what destroy means.

No, the observed results kind of define what "destroy" means. An argument which is based entirely on a deliberate choice of one from many possible semantic interpretations is essentially based on air.

In DS9 its hard to say that destroy meant just wipe out the Founders will orbital bombardment since the mantle was mentioned.

Which implies underground explosions that would have widespread seismic destructive effects, on a highly anomalous planet with a very thin crust (note that the mantle is only 6 times bigger than the crust according to their figures, which makes it obviously different from Earth). At no point does it require annihilation of the surface crust, particularly since we saw its effects. If it was capable of wiping out the crust in 1 hour, it should have destroyed roughly 3 million square kilometres of crust every 15 seconds, so the 20-30 second bombardment we saw should have been MUCH more destructive.

Then there's always the how part of it. About the only time we were given anything but the vague reference to destroy something was in the TOS ep where they targeted the cities. Die is Cast could very well be easily explained by technobabble weapons if you don't like the idea of Star Trek races able to destroy the crust and mantle of a planet through conventional means, especially since most of the major races specialize in doing things unconventionally.

Conventional or unconventional does not matter in this case. Destruction of the crust through EITHER means would expose glowing mantle. Destruction through conventional means would produce enormous plasma jets shooting up into orbit. We saw none of this, and don't give me the "it was only 20 seconds" excuse; do the math for 20 seconds vs 1 hour on the surface area of a planet, and you'll realize you should be looking at MILLIONS OF SQUARE KILOMETRES of exposed glowing mantle for just that short bombardment. Hell, they couldn't even hit the planet hard enough to knock out the ECM device they left on the surface.

[The Silence and I]

SCVN 2812 wrote:
There was an episode in TOS where part of the atmosphere of a planet was blown off in an explosion. The ship even rattled so it can't be written off as a throwaway line.

*yawn* Did you know that every asteroid or meteor which hits the Earth's atmosphere blows some of it off?

While true, that same asteroid or meteor will not blow off enough atmosphere to "rattle" the Enterprise. You know this, why did you ignore it as evidence--even if it is difficult to quantify?

Darth Wong wrote:
Conventional or unconventional does not matter in this case. Destruction of the crust through EITHER means would expose glowing mantle. Destruction through conventional means would produce enormous plasma jets shooting up into orbit. We saw none of this, and don't give me the "it was only 20 seconds" excuse; do the math for 20 seconds vs 1 hour on the surface area of a planet, and you'll realize you should be looking at MILLIONS OF SQUARE KILOMETRES of exposed glowing mantle for just that short bombardment. Hell, they couldn't even hit the planet hard enough to knock out the ECM device they left on the surface.

This can probably be explained more than one way. If they said they could destroy the crust in an hour, then they can unless visuals contradict this.
ONE: No jets of plasma were seen, so it must have involved unconventional means-I think we can agree here.
TWO: We did not see millions of square Km of glowing mantle. I see two possibilities:
A) They didn't come close to damaging the planet in any meaningful way, indicating they can't read their sensor data, have no clue what they're weapons can do, etc.
B) The planet was old, with a dead mantle and core. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the cold, inactive mantle of Earth's moon would glow at all. Why does this planet's mantle have to?

B) agrees with TOS, the supreme cannon in my opinion.
After all, no matter how you look at it, the Ent-nil can destroy all the cities on a planet in short order (many would argue much more) so a fleet of larger, more advanced warships ought to be able to significantly damage a planet inside of an hour.

[Ender]

) The planet was old, with a dead mantle and core. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the cold, inactive mantle of Earth's moon would glow at all. Why does this planet's mantle have to?

A cold, solid planet is a dead planet. No molten core, no Van Alten belts, nothing to protect you from space. It would be uninhabitable.

[Gil Hamilton]

B) The planet was old, with a dead mantle and core. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the cold, inactive mantle of Earth's moon would glow at all. Why does this planet's mantle have to?

If something blew up that much material, it would become very very hot, if not from the sheer energy being pumped into it but from deformation heat. There isn't any way around it, that shit would be incandescant anyway you look at it, assuming that they pumped actually destroyed that much real estate.

[seanrobertson]

This is my take on the "TDIC." I think it does not have to be wildly inconsistent with other incidents of Star Trek firepower.

The computer analysis claims, according to "Lovok": "...the planet's crust will be destroyed within one hour; and the mantle, within five."

So in 5-6 hours, depending on whether or not "within five" includes the hour spent on the crust, everything on the planet should be dead. That was the fleet's goal, after all--to kill all of the Founders, even those potentially deep underground.

To accomplish this, we're probably looking at the range of 100 million to 1 billion [equivalent] megatons.

Each ship, therefore, would sustain a bombardment of ~100 megatons/sec. for the duration of the operation, for a fleet-wide total of about 2 gigatons/sec. to equal 1E9 MT. That's to kill every Founder, every lifeform on the globe (bacteria?).

To equal 1E8 MT, the fleet would only need to sustain 192 megatons/sec. for six hours. On a per ship basis, that's only 9.6 megatons/sec. (or the equivalent thereto; they probably don't shoot every second for the entire period, but it's within this range).

This is certainly within reach of other Trek firepower figures. The torpedoes used could have been very high-yield devices, or they could have been similar to the "tricobalt device" which, in VGR's "Conspiracy Theory," was said to be a subspace weapon somewhat like what the Son'a used in "Insurrection." (Its yield was quantified as "20,000 teracochranes," whatever the hell that means.)

A "subspace weapon" might go a long way in explaining how we didn't see gigantic explosions on the planet's surface, yet we did see supersonic shockwaves. Indeed, subspace "shockwaves" propagate at incredible speed--note the ring that hauled ass away from Praxis. (Presumably, the greater the power, the faster the ring travels. I bet the Borg mines of "Scorpion" fame are similar to this, too.)

Additional note:

Since disruptors are basically phasers, and phasers themselves do not do much in the way of conventional vaporization, some of the destruction might not manifest as ejecta plumes, molten lakes, etc., since it was actually NDFed.

But as I said, I'm entirely overlooking the b.s. about X amount of lithosphere destroyed. IMO, that is all but irrelevant: the fleet probably wouldn't have continued attacking the planet if it didn't serve the purpose of killing more Founders. Their goal wasn't just to shoot up some rocks!

[seanrobertson]

Which implies underground explosions that would have widespread seismic destructive effects, on a highly anomalous planet with a very thin crust (note that the mantle is only 6 times bigger than the crust according to their figures, which makes it obviously different from Earth).

Mike, I have a thought regarding that planet's small mantle.

Correct my memory if faulty, but I was under the impression that the upper mantle, while hot, was essentially solid and ~80 km thick (avg.).

I also see little purpose in bombarding anything below this point...once you penetrate close to 200 km down (again on avg.), I think it's going to be far too hot for the Founders to survive, anyway. They do not have little Hilary Swank ships a'la "The Core" to run and hide in the asthenosphere.

So perhaps the fleet was only planning to bombard the lithosphere--the crust and the upper mantle? That would satisfy their mission requirement, it would explain why the Lovok changeling mentions "mantle" at all, and it would not require that that planet's layers themselves are wildly disproportionate from what we'd expect.

[Durandal]

B) The planet was old, with a dead mantle and core. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the cold, inactive mantle of Earth's moon would glow at all. Why does this planet's mantle have to?

Because its a habitable world, and humans can walk around on it without any special environmental gear.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, there is also canon evidence from an episode of TOS that Starfleet ships have the capability to annihilate all life on a planet; or at least that they can be ordered to do so. (One would think the existence of the order would presuppose the expectation that the order can be carried out, but who knows...)

Okay, found it: TOS EP 23 "A Taste of Armaggedon". The order is referred to as General Order 24.

[Durandal]

Actually, there is also canon evidence from an episode of TOS that Starfleet ships have the capability to annihilate all life on a planet; or at least that they can be ordered to do so. (One would think the existence of the order would presuppose the expectation that the order can be carried out, but who knows...)

Okay, found it: TOS EP 23 "A Taste of Armaggedon". The order is referred to as General Order 24.

We've been over this before.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, there is also canon evidence from an episode of TOS that Starfleet ships have the capability to annihilate all life on a planet; or at least that they can be ordered to do so. (One would think the existence of the order would presuppose the expectation that the order can be carried out, but who knows...)

Okay, found it: TOS EP 23 "A Taste of Armaggedon". The order is referred to as General Order 24.

We've been over this before.

Sorry, D, I'm new to it. I'll check the main site and see what's there on the subject.

[seanrobertson]

Actually, there is also canon evidence from an episode of TOS that Starfleet ships have the capability to annihilate all life on a planet; or at least that they can be ordered to do so. (One would think the existence of the order would presuppose the expectation that the order can be carried out, but who knows...)

Okay, found it: TOS EP 23 "A Taste of Armaggedon". The order is referred to as General Order 24.

We've been over this before.

Sorry, D, I'm new to it. I'll check the main site and see what's there on the subject.

Raoul, I think Damien meant it's been covered here, in the forums.

IIRC, the consensus was that, yes, a single ship has the ability to kill a whole lot of people, but it couldn't wipe out all life (including bacteria) in a timely fashion.

Shifting gears, what does...well, anyone think of my "upper mantle only" interpretation above?