StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why are they outlawed from the Federation? (I think it was mentioned in the TNG episode "The Most Toys")

And, while we're at it, what's the diferences between a disruptor and a phaser?

Wasn't that just a particular type of disruptor (the Veron-t ???)

TheDarkling wrote:Wasn't that just a particular type of disruptor (the Veron-t ???)

I really don't know, I was perusing the ex astris scientia site, and in the disruptors entry, on the treknology, they refer it is outlawed by the Federation. Why the ban? Why applied to a certain type of disruptor?

FAJO
I'm not surprised. This is the
prototype of the Varon-T
disruptor.

DATA
(reacts)
The Varon-T disruptor is banned
in the Federation.

FAJO
Yes. Only five were ever
manufactured. I own four. I
sleep with one under my pillow.
I sleep very well knowing it's
there.

DATA
It is a most lethal weapon.

FAJO
Oh, it's much more than lethal,
Data. It's vicious. It tears
a body from the inside out, quite
slowly by phaser standards, a
tortuous, painful death.
(beat, pointed)
I've always wanted to try it.


So it seems they were banned because they were too brutal on the target (but the weapon never went into mass produciton anyway).

In STIII, Kruge fires a disruptor on a crewmenber that achieves the same effect... (then again, in TWOK, the Federation phasers do that same effect also...)

Okay, so it's a special case.

Warspite wrote:Why are they outlawed from the Federation? (I think it was mentioned in the TNG episode "The Most Toys")

And, while we're at it, what's the diferences between a disruptor and a phaser?

Because they're nasty weapons.

Basically, they're a brute force version of phaser technology. Less NDF and more sheer power applied.

Stormbringer wrote:

Warspite wrote:Why are they outlawed from the Federation? (I think it was mentioned in the TNG episode "The Most Toys")

And, while we're at it, what's the diferences between a disruptor and a phaser?

Because they're nasty weapons.

Basically, they're a brute force version of phaser technology. Less NDF and more sheer power applied.

Yeah, I guess with the PC Federation, stun is more "nice" than kill. Or, put it in another way, another distinction between peace loving humans, and savage Klingons/treacherous Romulans. Sheesh!

Stormbringer wrote:Basically, they're a brute force version of phaser technology. Less NDF and more sheer power applied.

Sounds like a more efficient design to me....Maybe it requires more energy to make it work, but that definatly sounds deadlier. Then again, from what I understand, Klingon and Romulon ships weapons are always being cited as inferior because they wield disrupters instead of phasers.

They're probably banned for the same reason certain firearms are banned in our modern world. It likely has to do with some BS political garbage and laws that the UFP has passed for whatever reason. My guess is that someone went on a shooting spree with a disruptor which caused a huge public outrage, and soon after that they got banned "for the children".

This disruptor is 'too brutal'? They're dead either way.

It's no different from real-world bans on weapons: nerve gas is "inhumane" despite killing so quickly that you die before it has time to register on your brain at all. Most categories of chemical weapons are banned. Napalm ironically enough was *not* banned, although I think that was corrected post-vietnam. White Phosphorus is legal. Shotguns are not. At one point crossbows were illegal except when you were shooting at non-Christians with them. Et cetera, ad nauseum. There's no real reason why it's "more humane" IMHO to be torn apart with solid slugs rather than buckshot, or be blown to bits with high explosives rather than suffocated with poison gas.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Basically, they're a brute force version of phaser technology. Less NDF and more sheer power applied.

Sounds like a more efficient design to me....Maybe it requires more energy to make it work, but that definatly sounds deadlier. Then again, from what I understand, Klingon and Romulon ships weapons are always being cited as inferior because they wield disrupters instead of phasers.

That's probably the case. It achieves the results through brute force rather than finesse. The thing is the hand guns are probably more powerful but use more energy. On a ship the phaser are better because you can get more bang for the buck as it were.

Vympel wrote:This disruptor is 'too brutal'? They're dead either way.

It probably has to do with their lack of a non-lathal option. Not to mention they most likely wound horribly even with a non-lethal hit.

Vympel wrote:This disruptor is 'too brutal'? They're dead either way.

IIRC, the Geneva conventions outlaw the use of certain munitions against ground troops... I think DU rounds are among them, as well as the A-10 cannon rounds. I think flamethrowers are also banned.

I think they were banned because I think the Veron-T was probably designed to be very painful, and that's probably what the Federation took exception to.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Vympel wrote:This disruptor is 'too brutal'? They're dead either way.

IIRC, the Geneva conventions outlaw the use of certain munitions against ground troops... I think DU rounds are among them, as well as the A-10 cannon rounds. I think flamethrowers are also banned.

I think they were banned because I think the Veron-T was probably designed to be very painful, and that's probably what the Federation took exception to.

According to the Geneva Conventin, all military munitions must have a jacket (to protect the soldiers from lead poisoning, of course... ), never heard about any specifics on the A10, though, even the DU, they're so expensive that to waste on soldiers is... illogical. The flamethrowers? Only if it was post-Vietnam... nowadays there are better ways to clear bunkers.


Thanks for all the input!

According to the Geneva Conventions, using a .50 caliber machinegun on enemy troops is prohibited, however, you can use it to target their equipment, like, say, their belt buckles.

Everything is outlawed in the Federation. Kinky sex is probably outlawed for all we know. (Bastards)

SolidSnake wrote:Everything is outlawed in the Federation. Kinky sex is probably outlawed for all we know. (Bastards)

That was just stupid. Do you think before you post?

The Geneva conventions govern the basic laws of war such as not targetting civilians, the need for uniforms (under most cases) and the treatment of POWs. It is the Hague convention that imposes restrictions on weapons intended for antipersonel use.

All amunition intended to cause unnecessary suffering us banned, as are projectiles that are transparent to xrays. In these categories are expanding bullets (hollowpoints etc), nonmetallic flechettes, and explosive bullets smaller than ~.50 cal/20mm. There is no prohibition against using DU, or large caliber gun systems (.50cal and up) on troops. Chemical weapons are, however, prohibited.

Note however that civil police forces are not subject to Hague rules: using expanding bullets or poison gases for law enforcement is perfectly legal.

A seperate and much more recent convention outlaws the use of laser blinding weapons.


Given the real-world examples of weapons being deemed too brutal for use in warfare, the UFP's stance on unnecessarily painful weapons is not without precident.

Expanding bullet rules in the Convention are total bullshit.

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

Hague Declaration III, July 29 1899.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

Stormbringer wrote:

Warspite wrote:Why are they outlawed from the Federation? (I think it was mentioned in the TNG episode "The Most Toys")

And, while we're at it, what's the diferences between a disruptor and a phaser?

Because they're nasty weapons.

Basically, they're a brute force version of phaser technology. Less NDF and more sheer power applied.

Ok. How did we jump from 'nasty weapons' to 'more sheer power applied'?

If anything, the T-Disruptor appears to use far more nadion type energy rather then DET but one that works far more slowly. From what I remember when it was fired, it impacted on a womens chest. The point glowed red for a few seconds as it spread, then she was NDFed. AT a guess, I would say it delivered the NDF effect into the body and it worked far slower, simply NDFing her insides in great pain until it finaly consumed her totaly. Where as usualy phasers work far faster, NFDing a person in less then a second in most cases. And its possible normal phasers also incorperate the effects of the lower level stuns, cutting off sensation at the point of impact until they are consumed (just a guess but fitting with phaser versitility and the Federations PC streak).

consequences wrote:According to the Geneva Conventions, using a .50 caliber machinegun on enemy troops is prohibited, however, you can use it to target their equipment, like, say, their belt buckles.

IIRC, either Geneva or Hague banned the use of "flying machines" in combat.

The Dark wrote:IIRC, either Geneva or Hague banned the use of "flying machines" in combat.

1899 Hague IV banned the use of baloons as bombers for a period of five years. This period has long since elapsed.

Most of what's been posted into this thread about the laws of war is pure bullshit. Read the conventions and inform yourself.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

Enlightenment wrote:

The Dark wrote:IIRC, either Geneva or Hague banned the use of "flying machines" in combat.

1899 Hague IV banned the use of baloons as bombers for a period of five years. This period has long since elapsed.

Most of what's been posted into this thread about the laws of war is pure bullshit. Read the conventions and inform yourself.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

I meant that it is bullshit we have to follow that rule and issue our SEALs pathetic 9 mm hard point rounds. Disgraceful.

If a SEAL has to use his handgun rather than his rifle, then the shit will have hit the fan so badly that the loadout of his gun won't make much of any difference.

Besides, given the proliferation of bodyarmor these days, issuing hollowpoints (even if they were legal) isn't exactly smart because they aren't effective against armor.