Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Darth Tedious]

It goes without saying that the Empire has a significant amount of vessels. How many of those capable of committing to a "vs" battle is something else, if you consider the Empire is also busy: chasing rebels, smugglers and bounty hunters, occupying and terrorizing rebel (and sometimes friendly) worlds into submission, asserting fear into the general populace to maintain control, defending and patrolling military bases and secret areas, chasing after Jedi rumors, power projection, and so on across the entire galaxy. All of those tasks seem to always be assigned to a Star Destroyer.

This point is quite true, and is brought up often in versus debating. However, the opposite is also true- could the UFP spare every ship it has for a war? The Empire only needs its Navy for police action, while Starfleet carries out many neccesary civillian functions as well, such as the delivery of medicines and other supplies.

[Sandslice]

There is no evidence to suggest that the Executor was incapable of destroying Echo Base. You're ignoring the fact that Vader did NOT want to destroy the base, he wanted it intact so that he could capture Luke. Nuking Echo Base from orbit would have rather obviously been counterproductive to that goal.

Further, the theater shield deployed at Echo Base was intended to protect against orbital bombardment. It had nothing to do with defending against a ground assault. I'd say that works as advertised, wouldn't you?

A little off topic but I feel that I have to mention this. There actually is evidence that the Executor and the flotilla was incapable of directly destroying Echo Base. http://youtu.be/isRZxiDiH58 time 3:40. General reports that there is a energy field protecting an area of the planet capable of deflecting ANY bombardment. A bombardment from the Executor and it's escort of Star Destroyers, presumably.

Which indicates impressive shield tech: the flotilla was Executor, two ISD-1, five ISD-2 and one Victory.

TDiC is reasonably in line with planetary destruction seen in other episodes as well. The only thing that bugs me isn't that episode - it's the rest of DS9. A 30 ship fleet used to be a very large thing, not something you'd see every day. A fleet like that causing fast and utter destruction I could buy with ease, even considering the MADness it'd imply.

Then DS9 went and started telling us there were fleets of hundreds getting together. Bah. It takes the magic out of it.

I'd actually like to check out other planetary destruction episodes if you have a list?

[Ahriman238]

Didn't Eddington just render the planets inhospitable to Cardassians specificly? Considering they're humanoid and breathe the same air etc. I'm suprised he can do that, but the Marquis definitly wanted to move there after the Cardies left.

TMP: The outer cloud secion of V'ger is described as being 82 AU's (Astronomical Units) across. It broke material objects down into data, and would have done the same to earth via a half-dozen supercharged versions of the 'data torpedo' that destroyed the klingons in the beginning.

I too watched Voyager sparingly, but there were several instances of planets menaced with disaster so Janeway could be enlightened and moral and not do a damn thing. (Speaking of which, shouldn't Pen Pals be up there? *ding* [5]) There was also an episode with a Cardassian antimatter planet-busting missile, with weapons and shields more powerful than Voyager's and an AI smarter and more likeable than all Voyager's crew combined. It was launched against the Marquis, failed due to plot contrivance, captured, reprogrammed and sent back, then mysteriously zapped into the Delta Quadrant.

EDIT: and, of course, season 3 of Enterprise was all about how they had to stop the Xindi from designing and building the junior Death Star.

[Batman]

TMP: The outer cloud secion of V'ger is described as being 82 AU's (Astronomical Units) across. It broke material objects down into data, and would have done the same to earth via a half-dozen supercharged versions of the 'data torpedo' that destroyed the klingons in the beginning.

Err-I wouldn't exactly call that (or the Whale Probe, while we're at it) something the Federation can use. Trek has entities that (likely) can beat the Empire aplenty, this is about Federation technology, and V'Ger was, well, not.

I too watched Voyager sparingly, but there were several instances of planets menaced with disaster so Janeway could be enlightened and moral and not do a damn thing. (Speaking of which, shouldn't Pen Pals be up there? *ding* [5]) There was also an episode with a Cardassian antimatter planet-busting missile, with weapons and shields more powerful than Voyager's and an AI smarter and more likeable than all Voyager's crew combined.

An AI smarter and more likeable than all VOY's crew combined would likely have been doable on a CBM 64.

EDIT: and, of course, season 3 of Enterprise was all about how they had to stop the Xindi from designing and building the junior Death Star.

Which completely failed to destroy one measly US state when it was used and again, that's not Federation technology.

[Ahriman238]

Err-I wouldn't exactly call that (or the Whale Probe, while we're at it) something the Federation can use. Trek has entities that (likely) can beat the Empire aplenty, this is about Federation technology, and V'Ger was, well, not.

Thanas and I were answering a query for episodes involving Planetary destruction. Not neccessarily for Federation tech that does the job. I suppose the TOS episode 'the Doomsday Machine' should be up there to.

Anyone else amused by how many TOS episode titles could be swapped for DW serial titles and vice versa?

An AI smarter and more likeable than all VOY's crew combined would likely have been doable on a CBM 64.

If you can create AI on a CBM 64, who am I (or any mortal for that matter) to question your technical expertise?

Which completely failed to destroy one measly US state when it was used and again, that's not Federation technology.

The first one was apparently some sort of 'proof-of-concept' prototype, and the plot was to stop them from building and unleashing the real deal that could blow up planets. This does beg the question of why the Xindi sent the prototype into battle, much less doing so before they actually finished the real weapon. For that matter, the Enterprise found another prototype being put through it's paces in the Expanse. So really, i have no explanation for the attack on earth besides, of course, plot hook.

[Azron_Stoma]

There was also an episode with a Cardassian antimatter planet-busting missile, with weapons and shields more powerful than Voyager's and an AI smarter and more likeable than all Voyager's crew combined. It was launched against the Marquis, failed due to plot contrivance, captured, reprogrammed and sent back, then mysteriously zapped into the Delta Quadrant.

It wasn't planet-busting, it was a 43 gigaton missile at best, (1 Ton of Antimatter + 1 Ton of Normal Matter as per Torres introduction) Tuvok said it was enough to blow up a "Small Moon" which I suppose It could to a moon like Phobos or Deimos, but regardless the Planet it was headed to was, itself, not at risk.

[Batman]

Err-I wouldn't exactly call that (or the Whale Probe, while we're at it) something the Federation can use. Trek has entities that (likely) can beat the Empire aplenty, this is about Federation technology, and V'Ger was, well, not.

Thanas and I were answering a query for episodes involving Planetary destruction. Not neccessarily for Federation tech that does the job. I suppose the TOS episode 'the Doomsday Machine' should be up there to.
Anyone else amused by how many TOS episode titles could be swapped for DW serial titles and vice versa?

Probably, not including myself though (mainly due to ignorance of Dr Who episode titles prior to NuWho).

An AI smarter and more likeable than all VOY's crew combined would likely have been doable on a CBM 64.

If you can create AI on a CBM 64, who am I (or any mortal for that matter) to question your technical expertise?

Sarcasm. It's a difficult concept. And I'm not entirely sure you couldn't write a program that would act smarter than the VOY crew, no AI notwithstanding.

Which completely failed to destroy one measly US state when it was used and again, that's not Federation technology.

The first one was apparently some sort of 'proof-of-concept' prototype, and the plot was to stop them from building and unleashing the real deal that could blow up planets.

Could it? I don't we ever saw the thing actually fired. They said it could a lot but I don't think we ever actually saw it do that.

This does beg the question of why the Xindi sent the prototype into battle, much less doing so before they actually finished the real weapon. For that matter, the Enterprise found another prototype being put through it's paces in the Expanse. So really, i have no explanation for the attack on earth besides, of course, plot hook.

They were trying to see if the blasted thing worked at all to begin with? I'm not very keen on ENT (thank Valen) but unless they mentioned them trying out the weapon somewhere else, this may simply have been a trial run.

[Metahive]

Could it? I don't we ever saw the thing actually fired. They said it could a lot but I don't think we ever actually saw it do that.

It's fired in an alternate timeline in the episode Twilight, where Archer and co. have failed to stop its deployment.

[Norade]

Another planet destruction (talk anyway): "Broken Link" DS9.

Garak said "we have enough firepower on this ship to turn that planet into a smoking cinder!"

He wanted to crush the Dominion by taking out the ocean of changelings in the great link. He was trying to get the quantum torpedoes and phasers under his control.

They were surrounded by enemy ships too... he must have expected it to kill them all in a matter of minutes. Worf didn't disagree that it was possible either. Remember, Worf was a starship weapons expert throughout TNG; you'd expect him to know, though he might not have found it relevant enough to bother saying anything.


I find this line interesting because it's very similar to one of the lines used on the main site for BDZ.

So have we ever seen evidence outside of parallel universes that Trek has ever actually destroyed a planet?

[Azron_Stoma]

Having the Quantum Torpedoes and Phasers annihilate a lake of biomass doesn't seem all that impressive to me, I mean how large is it really? Besides, I don't think Garak meant they could reduce the planet to a smoking cinder before the Dominion blew them away, just that with the megaton scale torpedoes, they could certainly destroy the Great Link before the Dominion could retaliate.

Smoking cinder can describe all sorts of states of a planet, I've seen post apocalyptic series refer to their planet as being "reduced to a smoking cinder" or similar descriptions during their WWIII. Fallout included.

[Lord Helmet]

[quote="Norade"

]

So have we ever seen evidence outside of parallel universes that Trek has ever actually destroyed a planet?

I cannot remember any unless you count the genesis planet that they created and destroyed.

Trek seems to go in for destroying suns though so i suppose they make up for it.

[Norade]

Depends on what you mean by "destroy". Death Star style boom, no, I don't think so, unless you want to count Ceti Alpha V (off screen), Genesis, and Praxis, none of which quite match up.

BDZ analog? Hell yes, shitloads of them.

Care to give an episode list where we get onscreen evidence for this. None of the remastered ToS bullshit either.

[Norade]

Care to give an episode list where we get onscreen evidence for this. None of the remastered ToS bullshit either.

Have you read the fucking thread? I did this not even 10 posts ago. Try looking on the last page.

Going to get us some screen caps so we can see that this isn't like that Die is Cast bullshit that's been debunked before?

[Norade]

Besides, I don't think Garak meant they could reduce the planet to a smoking cinder before the Dominion blew them away, just that with the megaton scale torpedoes, they could certainly destroy the Great Link before the Dominion could retaliate.

Maybe, but he said what he said.

What I find most interesting about this is the wording is very similar to the "Star Wars Technical Journal"* description that the main site cites for BDZ (among other quotations): "a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours".


As I continue to watch through the series, we'll see if more stuff like this comes up. Season 5 should be arriving soon, and I'm averaging about six episodes a week now.

Of course in Wars we actually see instances in canon of what happens to worlds the get BDZ'ed.

[Norade]

Going to get us some screen caps so we can see that this isn't like that Die is Cast bullshit that's been debunked before?

The Die is Cast is a clear-cut case of rapid destruction.

Except that we clearly see that the planet is there and the piddly fireballs. Care to post the screen shots from the world ending bombardment so we can laugh at the shitty little fireballs again?

[Norade]

[1] Camaas, according to a canon RPG sourcebook fluff and canon illustrations, had surviving vegetation, animals, and people.

Oh, so you're going to take from only a single source ignoring that Camaas is mentioned in 31 separate sources. Not to mention all of those images are clearly hand drawn art and therefore are logically going to be inaccurate. Then allow me to take evidence for Trek only from a single source of my choosing and we can show that Trek Torpedo have less power than a hand grenade.

[2] No BDZ operation has ever done more than leaving a cratered surface with some atomized topsoil. If the planet's surface was indeed melted, not only would the landmasses likely not be recognizable, there probably wouldn't be any left at all! Look at projections of global warming on Earth and take that to 12. (it's one more than 11 lol)

So you think that landmasses would be unrecognizable because you say so. No proof, no evidence for why the world would totally look different, just because you said so. By all means keep on make spinal tap references and using overwhelming numbers of exclamation points. It can't make you look like more of an idiot.

[3] Danakyo not only had surviving rebels, but it had stormtroopers landing on the planet before it had cooled! Stormtrooper armor and other equipment could plausibly protect them from a nuclear wasteland. It's not believable that they landed on a liquid world to do a ground sweep for survivors...

Ignoring that any survivors would have been in hardened bunkers and those storm troopers would have been moving to bunker entrances to sweep for survivors.

[4] The Bothawai mission was supposed to leave no survivors, but it's a city-world getting nailed by only three ships. Even with TIE screens, if civilian spacecraft were common, it'd be millions of ships vs maybe 1000 TIEs... something would surely slip through.

So things would slip through because you want them to? You're going to have to show proof that a significant portion of the population escaped.

Except that we clearly see that the planet is there and the piddly fireballs. Care to post the screen shots from the world ending bombardment so we can laugh at the shitty little fireballs again?

The planet was expected to be lifeless in a matter of minutes. There's no reasonable doubt about this at all; it's consistent with the other events listed before and it would break suspension of disbelief to call everyone stupid about it.

BTW, the visual damage was similarly enormous. The ships were far enough away from the planet that we could see the entire disc, and the effects of weapon impact was very easily visible.

Do you realize how big that means it was, or do you not have any sense of scale at all?

It should not come as a surprise that The Die is Cast events come under almost constant attack by overzealous Wongian cultists, but those attacks will never change the clear-cut facts.

[/quote]

Yes because Trek dialogue is so reliable when we have so many instances of them fucking up things they're supposed to know about. Oh wait, you think we should ignore those gaffs and pretend like the idiots we see on screen are actually experts on things they clearly know nothing about.

Still waiting for those screen shots so you can give us calcs for how big you think the explosions are.

[Norade]

You're obviously stupid too. I'm not going to waste my life going over the same shit again. If you're really interested, look in the HoS for a thread about hilarious trekkie from last September.

Also, for the landmass, seriously, look up global warming projections. Melting just a portition of the ice cap would make enormous differences to Earth. Melting everything would do much more.

Oh, so you're not going to defend your point. I take that as a concession that Wong and Saxon were right about 'The Die is Cast'.

Except that you'd expect ocean levels to be somewhat lower if a large amount of the ocean had been converted to steam. Oh wait, why would you think of that.

[Darth Tedious]

I'd agree that not every second person in Star Wars owns their own ship- but relative to Trek, civilian spaceship ownership is exceedingly common in the GFFA.

I must point out that Io isn't the best example for what you're talking about. It's surface is in a constant state of upheaval, due to extreme volcanic activity. A much better study for the effects of BDZ can be found much closer to home: check out the 'seas' on our own moon. They're a perfect example of the effects of large areas being liquified and resetting.

Those things aside, I totally agree that BDZ is sometimes overstated in SW. And it does seem to be much more common in Trek than people give credit for...

[Mercenario]

Well, the question is awnsered quite easy: Because some people need it to be that way for some reason.
It does not matter to them that it would make the hole StarWars Universe look like a half thought out piece of crap. Why care as long as a X-Wing may take on a the Enterprise?

As a matter of fact, I never understood this attitude in any way.
StarWars is a universe where little guys with speers take on Stormtroopers and bring down Walkers with freaking tree traps.
Yes, you could not even do this to a todays humvee.

Yes, you may take cover from a Tie fighter behind a tree or keep on running while plasts miss you for just a feed or so.
Yes, for this to work the power of the guns has to be low. Very low and it should not scratch asteroids.
(Unless the asteroids are gass filled and of very low density)
The targeting systems of Starwars are crap too. They have to be.

-Sir, we got a ship launching from the surface
-I want them alive
-Target engines
*Pew, Pew*
-Here you go Sir.

So instead of breaking any blockade the Millennium Falcon would just been taken about every time.

It is quite simple:
You want persons to run beeing shot at from fighters-> the fighter should only be able to deliver around MJ. So you have some burns on the ground, but your hero does not get obligerated by the "missed" hit.
But you want fighters to be able to take on the armor of Capital ships->The armor has to be crap.
The only thing StarWars has to be better is long range traveling speed, because you are talking about a hole galaxie.
(If you get yourself the sensors of Startrek for example you would ruin the hole story in most instances.)

StarTrek cuts out most of the ground fights, I guess for exactly this reason. There is no fun, if a single soldier would be able to pack the punch of the hiroshima bomb. (The desintegration of hand hold phasers is worse enough already.)
Here it it does not matter, that the defiant could waste a planet in a few shots. Why should it?
If you want to do something about it, go for planetary shields or something.
(But here traveling speed would ruin the hole thing about voyager.

Finally it rips down to the fact, that StarWars is more of a fantasy story about good and evil, love and hate, rise and fall in a quite static( technologically compared to StarTrek) Universe. StarTrek focus on space exploration/techology development/Interspezies relation.
If you see a ship riding on the wave of a supernova while the Captain is thinking about the cultural differances between some species on a certain planet it is probably StarTrek.
If you see one dusty planet with awesome designed spacecrafts but close to no infrastructure it is StarWars.
StarWars technology is simplified (a ten year old boy is able to build an Robot from scraps), because it focuses on the story and the fantasy element.
StarTrek (TNG) started with the thought of beeing realistic since fiction.

If you ask which gets closer to the goal the story set for theirselve it is (in my opinion) defenatly StarWars. (If you do not take into account some half offical powercreep)
StarTrek failed because of a lot of official power creep.

Alone the idea of a cloaking device is quite silly, considering the enormous amount of heat a spacecraft emmits. This is something fitting for StarWars where pilots fire on sight using a joystick.

(The only thinkable "cloaking device" I found in Masseffect. Known as heat sinks. You are still visiable but the amount of heat your ship is emmitting is drastically reduced making you much harder to be picked up)

If you would like to build both worlds to feeling they have after the general books and films.
StarTrek would have the better Shields, Sensors, Weapons, while StarWars would have a lot of tech which would not work in the StarTrek Universe.

[Metahive]

Well, the question is awnsered quite easy: Because some people need it to be that way for some reason.
It does not matter to them that it would make the hole StarWars Universe look like a half thought out piece of crap. Why care as long as a X-Wing may take on a the Enterprise?

That I call poisoning the well. It doesn't bode well for the rest of your post, buddy.

As a matter of fact, I never understood this attitude in any way.
StarWars is a universe where little guys with speers take on Stormtroopers and bring down Walkers with freaking tree traps.
Yes, you could not even do this to a todays humvee.

A bunch of logs falling on top of a HMMV would take out the vehicle quite easily in fact, you wouldn't however be able to drive them into a dense forest in the first place. D'uh.

Yes, you may take cover from a Tie fighter behind a tree or keep on running while plasts miss you for just a feed or so.
Yes, for this to work the power of the guns has to be low. Very low and it should not scratch asteroids.

When does this happen? Not in movies for sure. Is this from the EU?

It is quite simple:
You want persons to run beeing shot at from fighters-> the fighter should only be able to deliver around MJ. So you have some burns on the ground, but your hero does not get obligerated by the "missed" hit.
But you want fighters to be able to take on the armor of Capital ships->The armor has to be crap.

Or, you know, give them dedicated capship killing ordinance. Kinda' like what happened to the Prince of Wales and Yamato in WW2.

StarTrek cuts out most of the ground fights, I guess for exactly this reason. There is no fun, if a single soldier would be able to pack the punch of the hiroshima bomb. (The desintegration of hand hold phasers is worse enough already.)
Here it it does not matter, that the defiant could waste a planet in a few shots. Why should it?
If you want to do something about it, go for planetary shields or something.
(But here traveling speed would ruin the hole thing about voyager.

It cuts out most of the ground fights because they'd need to hire a lot of extras/generate quite a lot of high-quality CG to make them look passable and they only have a TV budget.

Finally it rips down to the fact, that StarWars is more of a fantasy story about good and evil, love and hate, rise and fall in a quite static( technologically compared to StarTrek) Universe. StarTrek focus on space exploration/techology development/Interspezies relation.
If you see a ship riding on the wave of a supernova while the Captain is thinking about the cultural differances between some species on a certain planet it is probably StarTrek.
If you see one dusty planet with awesome designed spacecrafts but close to no infrastructure it is StarWars.
StarWars technology is simplified (a ten year old boy is able to build an Robot from scraps), because it focuses on the story and the fantasy element.
StarTrek (TNG) started with the thought of beeing realistic since fiction.

ST is just as much Science Fantasy as SW, only more pretentious.

Alone the idea of a cloaking device is quite silly, considering the enormous amount of heat a spacecraft emmits. This is something fitting for StarWars where pilots fire on sight using a joystick.

You could say that about the SW/ST techbase as a whole, that's why we are to apply SOD. "You'll believe a man can fly", the whole shebang.

If you would like to build both worlds to feeling they have after the general books and films.

You're approaching JasonB levels of incomprehensibility here.

StarTrek would have the better Shields, Sensors, Weapons, while StarWars would have a lot of tech which would not work in the StarTrek Universe.

Care to elaborate on this rather half-baked statement, pal?

[Mercenario]

You could say that about the SW/ST techbase as a whole,

It depends. StarWars has not the intend to get explainable Tech in the first place, so it would be silly to make the argument here.
StarTrek had this intend but

Look at the first Movie. Some guys out of the jungle seeming to be on a development of savages having hand held shields and giant shield generators carryed on the backs of beasts. This is fantasy und a beautiflul scenery.
To get here in with logic means ignoring the hole intend of the movies.
StarWars was never meant to draw out technological developement.
There might be completly different laws of physic in the StarWars universe as far as we know. (Could have existed even before the big bang)
So this hole argument would only be applyable for StarTrek since its basis have to be todays physics.

Care to elaborate on this rather half-baked statement, pal?

Would it be benefitial for the story, if a ship 1/100 the size of the Destroyer could annihilate a planet?
(Voyager is more than capable to do so)
Sensory I have elaborated before. Whats the fun of having X-Wings if they are getting shot down 8.000.000 km before their target?
StarTrek universe supports the use of much more sophisticated tech. (Sonsory, targeting etc.)

Take Han Solos ship for example. While it is a fine addition to the rebel fleed in StarWars a vessel with the same story in StarTrek would not be more of a nuisance than a help.
(-I have the fastest ship in the Galaxy.
-No, you had the festest ship in the Galaxy 2 years ago with the new *technobable*)
What good comes from the point of trying to mount a X TJ weapon to a one person fighter?
(Not to mention that thanks to the great Voyager (there is a reason I have never watched it) you got a lot of tech far beyond the scope of (what I once assumed to be) StarTrek.
Blowing up a planet? The borg do this with a hole solar system, why not?
Blowing up a planet? No Problem 9 ships of 8472 do this to an annihalate borg cubes near the planet in the blast. (Vaporising everything)
But if they are shooting at the voyager the shields are holding just fine. (While the voyager is quite a small ship, even for StarTrek)

[Darth Hoth]

I don't like calling characters stupid, so the next conclusion: civilian spaceship ownership is actually very rare in Star Wars, just like it seems to be in Star Trek.

Watching either Star Trek or Star Wars, I personally cannot but help but hand out gratuitous "stupid" hats to the characters. There is simply that much nonsensical writing.

To take a Wars example, to show that this is not mere anti-Trek bias, the AT-AT. Who (except kids young enough to think Kid Anakin from TPM was awesome) can look at those things and take them seriously at face value? And you can make a long list of these from either, though not all will be quite that blatant.

Calling people stupid breaks SOD less for me than trying to rationalise why Plot Device X should obviously make sense, why Stray Dialogue Line Y is not really retarded and the character who said it is a smart professional who must be right, or how Item Z is really a well thought-out and rational way to employ the technology of the respective setting.

Of course in Wars we actually see instances in canon of what happens to worlds the get BDZ'ed.

Not really; AFAIK, there's not a single instance of a proper BDZ.

You would be correct, I believe.

[1] Camaas, according to a canon RPG sourcebook fluff and canon illustrations, had surviving vegetation, animals, and people.

Caamas is a mess, nowadays, like much of the EU. Originally, the planetary destruction was said to be total; one book talked about the surface vegetation being "boiled off the world, leaving it a dead rock." In that sense it would make sense that terraforming was impossible, without an atmosphere.

It was retconned later, though, into what you are talking about. So, yes, the current description does not support an ICS-level Base Delta Zero.

[2] No BDZ operation has ever done more than leaving a cratered surface with some atomized topsoil. If the planet's surface was indeed melted, not only would the landmasses likely not be recognizable, there probably wouldn't be any left at all! Look at projections of global warming on Earth and take that to 12. (it's one more than 11 lol)

The RotS:ICS talks about an "hour-long orbital bombardment that depopulated and melted the crust of the former city world of Humbarine."

It would be about the only example of crust-melting I can think of offhand, though. And this book was written by Saxton, so no Trekkie worth his salt will take it seriously.

Although the Dankayo attack did blow off the planet's atmosphere according to the original description, but then this does not match the rest of the damage, as you pointed out.

[Darth Hoth]

Another planet destruction (talk anyway): "Broken Link" DS9.

Garak said "we have enough firepower on this ship to turn that planet into a smoking cinder!"

[ . . . ]

I find this line interesting because it's very similar to one of the lines used on the main site for BDZ.

Not all that similar, to my eyes. It is impossible to understand this as a literal description in this case; even if he had BDZ firepower, the planet would not turn into a literal smoking cinder if it was applied to it.

Whereas the Technical Journal phrasing is quite a bit more concrete. It describes both an effect that can be taken fairly literally (not crust-melting, however) and a timeframe. Which makes me think that this is an actual, factual and fairly literal description of the ISDs capabilities.

The context would imply the same; the rest of the text is a factual description of the ISD (a pseudo-encyclopaedic article, I would call it). As opposed to a single individual's blustering, in Garak's case.

Sweet Jesus, you are stupid. First, Wong and Saxton are so rarely right when it comes to the ST v SW debate that anyone appealing to them is automatically questionable. I feel endless shame for the brief period where I actually bought Mike's bullshit.

Not so very brief, from what I can tell from your avatar. You registered back in 2004, but only began contesting Wong's results back last autumn . . .

[Darth Tedious]

Do you have some examples on hand? My limited experience with the EU means the only one I really know is Han Solo! The Internet tells me some of the Rebel fleet is converted freighters too though.

Every smuggler (and every legitimate trader) in the galaxy. Hell, bounty hunters are technically civillians. Privateers were also featured heavily in S-canon (largely in online games and RPGs, allowing for mass-multiplayer). If we believe dialogue, it's not that hard to buy your own ship (remember Luke's wailing about Han's fees in ANH?).

The RotS:ICS talks about an "hour-long orbital bombardment that depopulated and melted the crust of the former city world of Humbarine."

It would be about the only example of crust-melting I can think of offhand, though. And this book was written by Saxton, so no Trekkie worth his salt will take it seriously.

Unfortunately for them, it doesn't matter who wrote it. Not only is it canon, but as an accompanying text to RotS, it's bloody G-level canon.

[Bakustra]

There was an old interview with a Lucasfilm employee which implied that material closer to the films overrides material farther from the films. It predates the current GCT (needs an A) method of ranking sources and may or may not be applicable.