StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just wondering why nuclear weapons aren't used in Star Trek. I mean, I can think of thousands of episodes where nukes could easily be used. I always wonder why the hell don't they use nukes... think of their effectiveness against Borg cubes, and Romulan Warbirds... to be honest they'd rock. I mean, even in Nemesis the Quantum Torpedoes looked pretty damn sad. First Contact they were pretty sad and the Borg torpedoes were even worse.

I'm sorry but if that's 24th century weaponry, its not an improvement.

--Luigi

Atomic weapons were used during the Romulan Wars, according to TOS.

I remember that, but it seems odd how our modern day nuclear based fusion and fission explosives would work better in space, and that they never use them. And, that their "replacements" for nuclear weapons were even weaker, with the exception of when they used them on the Original Series. The phasers and torpedoes after TOS were crap.

--Luigi

Anti-matter produces a bigger bang for the buck.

FYI, I am watching this thread like a hawk. Keep it clean Luigi. And as for the rest of you, don't bait him.

Well, on the show it just seems dumb how they don't make it seem as powerful as they boast. It is completely retarded how they glorify them, but when they use them.... arg...

--Luigi

Baron Mordo wrote:Atomic weapons were used during the Romulan Wars, according to TOS.

But thanks to Beavis and Butthead with enterprise they`ll redo it all and no nukes this time.

spaceluigi wrote:I remember that, but it seems odd how our modern day nuclear based fusion and fission explosives would work better in space, and that they never use them. And, that their "replacements" for nuclear weapons were even weaker, with the exception of when they used them on the Original Series. The phasers and torpedoes after TOS were crap.

--Luigi

"It looked sad" is a ridiculous effort at an argument. Troll or not, at least make an effort to say something quantifiable. (Sorry, Alyeska...someone had to tell him this subjectivism isn't even good trolling.)

Besides, your point is moot: post-TOS Trek does have adequate replacements for nukes since individual ships can inflict catastrophic losses to a planet's humanoid population in a matter of hours.

It does look sad. On TOS, they don't, but on every other %$#@ series after that, the torpedoes, shields, phasers were about as effective as paintballs.

Ya know, on TOS they had a REAL ship. They boasted the hell out of it, but when TNG came out, and the sucky wimp crew with it, they never ever had a ship like TOS. On the first episode, "The Cage," the navigator mentions that the ships lasers can crack half a continent! Yet on TNG, they are best put to use digging into comets as big as they were.

Rrg.

--Luigi.

TOS didn't show explosions and they also didn't show the enemy ship (allowing proper range numbering in 1000's of KM) TNG onwards they got FX happy thus why it seems weaker.

Yes, but they got damage reports on both series. TOS had the happier charts.

--Luigi

Alyeska wrote:Anti-matter produces a bigger bang for the buck.

Perhaps a bad choice of words there. Antimatter produces a much greater bang for the mass, but is far more expensive than nuclear weapons unless energy costs are down in the 1e-7 cents/kwh range.

FYI, I am watching this thread like a hawk. Keep it clean Luigi. And as for the rest of you, don't bait him.

Ditto.

Explanations are not impossible to come by if you try. For example, a modern 1 megaton device is roughly a ton, and would not result in a highly maneuverable torpedo. It is perfectly reasonable to think that their most powerful warheads are probably more massive than their small warheads, and that they might have "strategic torpedoes" which are much more powerful than their regular ones but which are also heavier and therefore less maneuverable, hence good for hitting planets but not starships.

A nuclear warhead crammed into a Photon torpedo would be kiloton range, likely not even into the hundreds; I believe the tech manual had a diagram of a torpedo and that would be useful. Anyway, overall a photon torpedo is significantly smaller then the B-61 aircraft bomb, and its max yield is just 300 kilotons.

Anti matter is going to be more expensive. But you'd be looking at many fewer weapons that require far larger delivery systems. Fewer launch tubes as well.

Sea Skimmer wrote:A nuclear warhead crammed into a Photon torpedo would be kiloton range, likely not even into the hundreds; I believe the tech manual had a diagram of a torpedo and that would be useful. Anyway, overall a photon torpedo is significantly smaller then the B-61 aircraft bomb, and its max yield is just 300 kilotons.

Anti matter is going to be more expensive. But you'd be looking at many fewer weapons that require far larger delivery systems. Fewer launch tubes as well.

In addition, a torpedo-sized nuke might be more expensive to produce, it would require a separate storage from the warp-fuel, it would be difficult to store safely, and might cause environmental or ethical concerns for the UFP.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:A nuclear warhead crammed into a Photon torpedo would be kiloton range, likely not even into the hundreds; I believe the tech manual had a diagram of a torpedo and that would be useful. Anyway, overall a photon torpedo is significantly smaller then the B-61 aircraft bomb, and its max yield is just 300 kilotons.

Anti matter is going to be more expensive. But you'd be looking at many fewer weapons that require far larger delivery systems. Fewer launch tubes as well.

In addition, a torpedo-sized nuke might be more expensive to produce, it would require a separate storage from the warp-fuel, it would be difficult to store safely, and might cause environmental or ethical concerns for the UFP.

Not for section 31

Montcalm wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:
In addition, a torpedo-sized nuke might be more expensive to produce, it would require a separate storage from the warp-fuel, it would be difficult to store safely, and might cause environmental or ethical concerns for the UFP.

Not for section 31

Section 31 probably doesn't maintain any capital ships, and if it does they cannot differ significantly from the standard ones handed out by SF proper, for risk of being detected.

spaceluigi wrote:It does look sad. On TOS, they don't, but on every other %$#@ series after that, the torpedoes, shields, phasers were about as effective as paintballs.

Ya know, on TOS they had a REAL ship. They boasted the hell out of it, but when TNG came out, and the sucky wimp crew with it, they never ever had a ship like TOS. On the first episode, "The Cage," the navigator mentions that the ships lasers can crack half a continent! Yet on TNG, they are best put to use digging into comets as big as they were.

Rrg.

--Luigi.

Weege, in the horrible episode "Masks," the E-D actually vaporizes a "comet" significantly larger than the ship itself, with 10% full phasers. The D'Arsay Archive inside the ice undoubtedly took up a lot of that volume, and phasers are far better at destroying something like ice, but methinks you imply significant contradiction where there really is none.

Darth Wong wrote:Explanations are not impossible to come by if you try. For example, a modern 1 megaton device is roughly a ton, and would not result in a highly maneuverable torpedo. It is perfectly reasonable to think that their most powerful warheads are probably more massive than their small warheads, and that they might have "strategic torpedoes" which are much more powerful than their regular ones but which are also heavier and therefore less maneuverable, hence good for hitting planets but not starships.

Precisely!

I think that's what the "class 10" warhead in VGR's "Scorpion" probably was. It was fired to destroy a formation of bioships, so perhaps its tracking ability wasn't fully evident...still, it seemed like the perfect example of a fire-and-forget device for a big explosion, far more impressive-looking than their typical class six torpedoes.

While very powerful nukes did show up in "Ballence of Terror"

Sea Skimmer wrote:Anti matter is going to be more expensive.

By a huge margin. For the unreasonably low production cost of $1 million/gram, a 45MT warhead would cost 1,000,000,000 dollars. Nukes are orders of magnitude cheaper.

As Yosemite pointed out, they did use a nuke in the TOS episode Balance of Terror, where the Romulan ship feigned destruction and left a simple proximity fused nuke in the debris they'd ejected. It went off a matter of a few hundered metres away and all it did was knock out a few systems temporarily, allowing Kirk to use exactly the same feint to lure the Romulans into decloaking. Good episode too.

Maybe nukes are just too simple for the 24th Century, too easy to stop with shields and too easy to block with counter-measures. When you have anti-matter weaponary to hand, why bother with nukes? Cost means nothing in the future, only shortages of material would stop them and they have systems worth of stuff!

Actually, antimatter costs in out and around the range of $6.68 trillion dollars per gram. Despite the fact that the Federation uses no money, it would still need the resources and power systems to make antimatter.

A nuclear weapon, of today, uses about a softball sized neutron source to destroy a city. The warhead itself would be about the size of your everyday beachball. While these warheads are very heavy and would make for a non-agile torpedo, I point out that with Nuclear based weapons, you don't exactly have to be accurate. Also, the US today employs the lovely "Peacekeeper" ICBM, which has ten warheads in it.

spaceluigi wrote:Actually, antimatter costs in out and around the range of $6.68 trillion dollars per gram. Despite the fact that the Federation uses no money, it would still need the resources and power systems to make antimatter.

I see, you are applying current day costs using the US dollar as a standard to the Federation who has technology and resources the US does not. You get two guesses to spot the error.

A nuclear weapon, of today, uses about a softball sized neutron source to destroy a city. The warhead itself would be about the size of your everyday beachball. While these warheads are very heavy and would make for a non-agile torpedo, I point out that with Nuclear based weapons, you don't exactly have to be accurate. Also, the US today employs the lovely "Peacekeeper" ICBM, which has ten warheads in it.

In Trek accuracy is fairly important. Especially when your weapons are directed explossions. You miss and your fucked. Second, an ICBM is a huge fucking rocket.

I also point out again that in Trek's future, there's plenty of resources and power to do what the hell they like, planet loads of it. And once again I point out that a nuke went off a few hundered metres from the Ent-nil with it's shields up and all it did was piss them off. Looks like nukes aren't up to the job against shielded targets in their century, doesn't it.

Enlightenment wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Anti matter is going to be more expensive.

By a huge margin. For the unreasonably low production cost of $1 million/gram, a 45MT warhead would cost 1,000,000,000 dollars. Nukes are orders of magnitude cheaper.

We don't really know how expensive it is for the Federation to make it, there fusion reactors offer considerable amounts of power relative to there anti matter plants. And the high demand would probably offset infrastructure costs fairly quickly.