Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Batman]

I always assumed lostech referred to technology that was, you know, lost? As in no longer available? Not stuff they used once and then apparently forgot about but should still have lying around somewhere, but technology they genuinely no longer have access to. Genesis would have fallen under this (I honestly didn't know the thing resurfaced in DS9) thanks to the only man who actually knew how to make it work (or possibly not, we have no idea if the Genesis planet being unstable was because the Genesis effect was faulty or because it was used in circumstances it was never designed for) being dead.

[Eternal_Freedom]

we have no idea if the Genesis planet being unstable was because the Genesis effect was faulty or because it was used in circumstances it was never designed for

Incidentally, the "Genesis Wave" book one contains a classfied report on Genesis technology, and explains that the Genesis planet failed because it was made from a nebula; the device used too much of it's energy creating the world and hence was not able to stablise everything before the power source ran out.

Aside from that, don't bother with the books, they were not very good at all.

[Connor MacLeod]

I always assumed lostech referred to technology that was, you know, lost? As in no longer available? Not stuff they used once and then apparently forgot about but should still have lying around somewhere, but technology they genuinely no longer have access to. Genesis would have fallen under this (I honestly didn't know the thing resurfaced in DS9) thanks to the only man who actually knew how to make it work (or possibly not, we have no idea if the Genesis planet being unstable was because the Genesis effect was faulty or because it was used in circumstances it was never designed for) being dead.

Just because they don't use a technology any more does not mean they no longer have the technology available. It could mean that implementation is simply not cost effective, it could be risky or dangerous, or they may even just have moral/ethical objections to it.

Otherwise we could just argue stuff like Cloaking technology and personal shielding in SW is "lost tech" simply because it isn't shown as widespread.

[Batman]

I'm reasonably certain that was my point?

[Connor MacLeod]

Was it directly stated to be related to "Genesis" technology?

In universe, they never actually used the word Genesis itself. It's pretty obvious though: the mechanism used was described in an almost word-for-word identical fashion, the special effect was lifted straight off Carol Marcus' presentation, and right before it activates, it's creator says "Let there be light" - a quote from the Book of Genesis.

They did everything short of using the word Genesis itself. Out of universe, in the dvd commentary, they confirm it was meant to be show that Dr Marcus' work had been picked back up.

Well looking up the epsiode, it looks like it involved protomatter. That may or may not explain the effect, but that doesn't mean (by itself) that it is an extension of genesis. It may or may not be, we simply dont know. Looking up Genesis, the only thing they mentioned is in Voyager once, and it was in context of the Omega Molecule, which may mean that Genesis still proves to be dangerously unstable for anyone to mess with.

Also looking up the protomatter, it looks like they've used it to try to destroy stars before in DS9 (which kinda bugs me. Why could the station doctor be allowed to assemble the materials to make a star-destroying bomb and noone notices. I'd think the Federation would WANT to worry about other races running around casually with the ability to assemble WMD.)

tbh, I don't really know, but there's a few facts to consider:

1) If it was going to happen spontaneously, it would - the star wouldn't be dead. So the device has to be doing something to it.

2) Stars are huge, and the effect quickly went over the whole thing

3) Moving or breaking apart atoms inside the star most likely takes energy input (fighting it's gravity well or fission of elements lighter than iron)

4) Another possible means, intense pressure, is also magical to produce

Whatever the number would work out to be, I'm pretty sure it'd be unreasonably huge just due to the sheer size of a star.

There's also the time factor to consider, although in Trek this never seemed to matter. Which also bugs me, because I'd imagine doing something tricky and potentially hazardous like this would call for moving slowly. (Same really applies to Genesis too. I never quite understood why the planet needed to be terraformed rapidly. But then again the reasons WHY they pursued Genesis were pretty odd too, given their ability to create space stations and such.)

Also looking up the incident, the star looked kinda "odd" to me, but who the fuck knows what a Dead star looks like anyhow?

There's also just so many ways to skin a cat that they really don't need to make a huge deal out of just one method.

Well when the objective is to win I suppose it becomes a big deal. But like I said, if you're starting to claim all these big, wonderful potnetial superweapons are just lying around waiting for someone to use them, you have to wonder why the ST galaxy still exists. If you believed some Trekkies, you'd think that destroying planets and stars, and travelling back in time to wipe out oyur enemies woudl be a routine occurance if they weren't "holding back."

I got enough "holding back" excuses from Rabid B5 fans who wanted to claim that The B5 First Ones could beat the Culture. (Then again some Trekkies have claimed that Trek could do that as well, so eh. So have some Warsies for that matter.)

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm reasonably certain that was my point?

You implied "they no longer have access to it", which is not the same thing as I was saying: They have access to it, it's just not the easily used, game winning superweapon it gets made out to be.

For example, how much protomatter is required to re-ignite a dead star or rapidly terraform a planet? Are the devices able to survive rapid accelerations that would liekly be needed to weaponize it in a warhead (they could be quite fragile for all we know - peacetime use does not correlate into a wartime use.) It could be unbearably costly in time, money, or effort to mass-produce (although I suspect this, like logistics gets ignored because of REPLICATORS!)

They could very well blow up a number of stars with this method, but nothign says they'll be able to mass produce them to a scale that they could decimate the whole SW galaxy by this method (or any other.)

The tech being "lost/inaccesible" also suggests they are no longer inacapable of working with it, improving it or developing it further to make it workable. Indeed, accoridng to Voyager the technology still exists, but it is apparently still very hazardous to use (so they either have ceased working on it, or they have not made progress towards making it safe.)

The basic tenent behind "lost tech" is the whole "if they have it, why don't they use it" argument that is so utterly prevalent in sci fi, and this gets used on both sides of the camp (or indeed in any sci fi/fantasy oriented vs.) The question can be a good one, in a certain context, but it is not a blanket excuse just to dismiss shit the way it usually is.

[Batman]

I think we're talking past each other. When I say 'lost technology' I mean just that-lost technology. Not impractical or inefficient or never used again for some arcane reason, but lost. As in they no longer have it.

[Connor MacLeod]

And what's the proof that they no longer have it? Has it actually been said "we no longer have the technology for Genesis"? This isn't like losing your wallet or something.

[Batman]

I don't have to prove they don't, you have to prove they do. As DS9 says they do, they do.

[Batman]

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. What I was trying to say (apparently not particularly clearly) was that without David Marcus, they couldn't have made Genesis work, and given that he kept his use of protomatter secret (what with that being illegal and all) I doubt he left much in the way of documentation, thus no way for the Federation to reconstruct his work, thus working Genesis was Lost Technology at the time.

As the thing apparently popped up again in DS9 they obviously figured out a way to make it work regardless.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

Thanks. I wsa just about ready to tear you a new one for that.

What I was trying to say (apparently not particularly clearly) was that without David Marcus, they couldn't have made Genesis work, and given that he kept his use of protomatter secret (what with that being illegal and all) I doubt he left much in the way of documentation, thus no way for the Federation to reconstruct his work, thus working Genesis was Lost Technology at the time.

That's the thing. we dont know ANYTHING about the aftermath of Genesis, the documentation process, or anything like that. It wasn't really relevant to the story. And even if there was very little documentation, why does that mean the Federation has literally NO ability to recreate it or do it over again? I know the crap they pull with Data and shit, but I see no reason to completely humor some of ST's more retarded ideas. (Shoudl we literally assume that engineering = magic in Star Trek? This isn't warhammer 40K where RED ONES GO FASTER, even if it seems that way sometimes because of the writers.)

Besides, that still doesn't address the absurdity of the "lost tech" argument, which at its core was meant to address some of the more overtly trekkie fanboy tactics to beat the Empire in THE DEBATE. It had as much to do with logical consistency as those self-same fanboy arguments, or any argument pertaining to the Death Star. It was basically just "well if you want to play that game, we can play that." style logic (even if some people seemed to take it more seriously than that.)

In truth we don't even know whether Genesis could be easily weaponized, how cost effective it would be or what the tradeoffs would be, the method of deployment, limitations, or anything LIKE that. like most "tactics" of that nature, it fixated solely on the "effect" and "I win", but left every other relevant and important detail in the mysterious black box. Much like that episode of South Park involving the underpants gnomes, really.

Edit: It also is silly because it ignores the consequences of such fanboy tactics in continuity. EAsily available time travel/genesis devices/rampant DS-scale automated production" are all very impressive and destructive, but the easier you make that avaialble, the more readily it can be turned against the universe itself, with catastrophic results. How long do you think the Federation or GE would realistically last if all the "uber tech" was just given free reign without thought of consequence or limitation?

As the thing apparently popped up again in DS9 they obviously figured out a way to make it work regardless.

It's more likely that it was an extension or a variation on the work. The only similarity involved (as I pointed out to D13) is protomatter, and it's silly to assume anything and everything to do with protomatter involves Genesis. For all we know Genesis was just one application of a much larger Protomatter research program the Federation was/is involved with. Maybe after ST3 it had its funding diverted elsewhere, or they simply dropped one path in favour of another, or whatever. agian we dont know and it could go ALOT of different ways.

[Patrick Degan]

The only point of commonality between Prof. Sateyik's "star-lighter" (for want of a better name) and Genesis is that both used protomatter. Beyond that, there are worlds of difference between the two. Genesis involved operations far more complex than reigiting a dead dwarf star. As Carol Marcus described the process of Genesis:

It is a process whereby molecular structure is reorganised at the subatomic level into life-generating matter of equal mass. Stage One of our experiments was conducted in the laboratory. Stage Two of the series will be attempted in a lifeless underground. Stage Three will involve the process on a planetary scale. It is our intention to introduce the Genesis device into the pre-selected area of a lifeless space body, such a moon or other dead form. The device is delivered, instantaneously causing what we call the Genesis Effect. Matter is reorganised with life-generating results. ...Instead of a dead moon, a living, breathing planet, capable of sustaining whatever lifeforms we see fit to deposit on it.

Contrast with Prof. Sateyik's description of his "star-lighter":

Basically I'll use a remote-piloted shuttlepod to deliver proto-matter into the dead star. This will cause a cascade effect which will transform the star's carbon and oxygen into elemental hydrogen. Then we just stand back and watch the fireworks.

A black dwarf, which is what Epsilon 119 appears to be (itself an impossibility since there shouldn't be any black dwarf stars in our universe as yet due to a white dwarf's estimated cool-down time, but we'll skip over that for now), is basically an Earth-sized ball of degenerate matter with a mass of between 0.1 and 0.9 solar mass. What Sateyik is describing is somehow inducing fission in the dwarf's carbon and oxygen until they break down into elemental hydrogen, at which point the dwarf's own gravity would induce renewed fusion reactions. This would actually be a far simpler operation than what Genesis is attempting to accomplish —"reorganisation of matter at the subatomic level into life-generating matter of equal mass"— involving only the breaking apart of heavier atoms into lighter ones and then letting gravity do the rest of the work. Perhaps the protomatter accomplishes this by way of the same sort of nuclear disruption force which has been speculated here as the mechanism by which phasers disintegrate matter.

[Patrick Degan]

The only point of commonality between Prof. Sateyik's "star-lighter" (for want of a better name) and Genesis is that both used protomatter. Beyond that, there are worlds of difference between the two.

The two things you quoted are describing nearly identical processes. I have no idea how you can look at them and see worlds of difference.

Not only do they both use protomatter, but they both have an instant effect that spreads over the target, reorganizing matter on a subatomic level. The fundamental process is identical.

It is not necessary to reorganise matter at the subatomic level to fission carbon and oxygen (assuming you could do that in the first place, but that's another headache). That it is doing this subatomic reorganisation is entirely your assumption and an unfounded one, since Setayik does not go into any detail regarding his "cascade effect" —which can as easly apply to describing a more basic fission process.

The Genesis pattern is more complex, probably needing more care to get the right result (probably why they didn't get it right), but the technologies are so clearly based on the same thing I caught it before Sateyik even finished his lines. And, again, the writers confirmed as much too:

According to Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Seyetik's terraforming technology is based upon the Genesis Device as seen in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan; "It was established Federation terraforming technology. Of course, the Genesis device didn't work, but obviously Seyetik's work is built upon the research of previous scientists. And it was a nice way to reference the movie." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)

You do realise that appealing to a writer's apparent intent is valueless in evaluating on-screen evidence, don't you? Especially as Wolfe got it wrong when he said that Genesis was "established Federation terraforming technology" —it was an experiment that failed and that, because of the inclusion of unstable protomatter, could never have worked otherwise even to the extent that it did do.

Besides which, it would be hard to follow up on Genesis considering that a) the Regula One station computers with all the project data were wiped, b) all but two of the project scientists were murdered by Khan Singh, c) the remaining key project scientist died soon afterward on Genesis, and d) the only prototype Genesis device was lost when it detonated. All that was left was Carol Marcus, but she would never have been able to recreate a team project on her own, her presentation video is worthless, and what sensor readings that might have been taken by the Enterprise during the event would never have yielded enough information as to how Genesis worked. This does not in and of itself preclude investigation into other ways protomatter might be utilised, and Setayik found a way to use it as the trigger for his "star-lighter", but a simpler explanation than the Genesis effect is feasible to describe Setayik's device, especially in the light of other funky chain-reaction disintegration devices seen in the various series over the years.

What Sateyik is describing is somehow inducing fission in the dwarf's carbon and oxygen until they break down into elemental hydrogen, at which point the dwarf's own gravity would induce renewed fusion reactions. This would actually be a far simpler operation than what Genesis is attempting to accomplish

Simpler in the sense that the final pattern is a lot simpler, of course, but from a physics perspective, it's probably much harder.

Simpler that the entire process of the "star-lighter" is far more basic than what Genesis was ever designed for or actually accomplished, however briefly. Genesis is attempting to achieve a very highly complex series of subatomic reorganisations within a very tight timeframe and to a preprogrammed pattern in order to construct matter of a far higher level of organisation than hydrogen and helium or even the basic elements which are manufactured in supernova events, and have it all come out as a viable planet with a human-compatible ecosystem. By contrast, all Setayik's device must accomplish is to induce fission in carbon and oxygen to the point where they ultimately break down into basic hydrogen. The dwarf's gravity does the rest of the work in initiating fusion.

Consider conservation of energy: if it indeed turns back the clock, fissioning carbon so it may fuse again back into carbon, the energy from the second fusion can't come from nowhere. That energy must be put back into it for the fission to take place. Even if this is done via phaser style magic, conservation of energy should still apply.

Conservation does still apply. The dwarf's gravity doesn't vanish. And the external source of energy to initiate the fissioning of the carbon comes from the protomatter reactions with the matter of the dwarf. The books still balance and without resort to hypercomplex subatomic reorganisations.

This is why the energy calcs would hurt my brain. It's be a staggeringly huge number, delivered from such a small thing. That's why I speculated it's just unpoisoning the reaction somehow rather than a whole thing. It's consistent enough with his statement for fictional work without requiring a number quite as big.

I can appreciate the scale of your problem. However, funky chain-reaction disintegrations and a whole host of conservation-violating phenomena have been commonly observed in Star Trek almost since the series first premiered, to the point where they are normal phenomena that must be rationalised rather than simply dismissed. The whole phaser problem (a weapon that violates both CoM and CoE, sometimes simultaneously) required the formulation of a nuclear disruption force theory to explain the weapon's mechanics with any degree of rationality, for example.

[Patrick Degan]

It is not necessary to reorganise matter at the subatomic level to fission carbon and oxygen

Turning carbon and oxygen into hydrogen is reorganizing matter on the subatomic level by definition. Elements are defined by how their protons (which are subatomic particles) are organized.

No, it is breaking apart heavier elements into lighter ones, not wholesale rearrangement of their subatomic patterns to achieve anything on the scale of what Genesis attempted, which is the point of contention here.

You do realise that appealing to a writer's apparent intent is valueless in evaluating on-screen evidence, don't you?

I don't care. I'm here to talk about Star Trek, not do some dumbass canon rules lawyering based on horseshit philosophy. Besides, it was on screen. If you aren't smart enough to put two and two together without the literal words being spoonfed to you, well, you're just fucking stupid and I hate you.

What you care about is irrelevant, and the matter goes far beyond simple rules-lawyering. This is why:

(Cons of the literary approach to SF analysis):

• Its inherent ambiguity tends to create endless debating stalemates (this might be considered a good thing if you think debates are for entertainment rather than resolution of disputes).

• Poorly suited to scientific analysis of any kind, since the notion of scientific analysis of an author's intent requires that the author himself must be scientifically competent. An author cannot intend to convey a message beyond his own comprehension.

• Is limited to the author's scientific comprehension by its very nature as an attempt to divine his intentions. If the author is an ignoramus, then there are many intelligible explanations for phenomena which become off-limits because the author wouldn't understand them.

• Has a penchant for explaining things by going "out of universe" for an explanation based on the author's motives and literary conventions. For example, the argument that "the good guys have to win" is a classic example of literary analysis.

Besides which, it would be hard to follow up on Genesis considering that a) the Regula One station computers with all the project data were wiped

Yup, because engineering projects are never built on a body of existing science. New science never stands on the shoulders of giants. People never send their data off site. Funders never care about protecting their investments or seeing progress updates.

Genesis was a top-secret government project, which means its data was not shared out amongst other research institutes. The very nature of the project combined with the fear of Dr. David Marcus that Genesis could be weaponised resulted in a security clampdown. Plus, David Marcus secretly included protomatter into the Genesis design, a substance which "every ethical scientist in the galaxy has denounced as dangerously unpredictable". Genesis had not been designed originally to incorporate it, and without it the system would not have worked at all. And as it was, the resulting planet became unstable very rapidly. Platitudes about science "standing on the shoulders of giants" do not erase these fundamental problems both with Genesis and with the notion that it could have been recreated after it's information store was destroyed and all but one of the development team were killed.

And even for projects which aren't top secret, it is still quite possible for the knowledge-base to be so completely degraded that the capability to replicate a previous achievement is lost. Case in point: NASA could not build another Apollo Saturn V rocket today. The records-keeping was shoddy at best, the original dies from which the parts of the rocket were fashioned were scrapped, and a good number of the engineers who worked on the various aspects of the Saturn rocket project are long retired or dead. Much of the information relating to how we built everything that made it possible to reach the moon has been simply lost or is scattered and now they're trying to start again from first principles and by reverse-engineering of some of the very few remaining examples of Saturn rocket parts still available for examination. Another example is how, to this day, nobody has managed to replicate the formula the Romans used to mix a superior grade of cement to what is available today, even despite the fact that our knowledge of the chemical sciences far exceeds that of ancient Rome.

It's just utterly absurd to think Team Marcus figured out all relevant science themselves from the ground up and never sent anything aside from that one proposal back, but still had a Starfleet ship and their engineers at their disposal. Projects don't work that way.

Appeals to Incredulity will not save your argument.

[Vympel]

Wong is a fucktard. He's attacking a strawman there (surprise!), he's full of shit, and it's not even relevant here. He goes on about scientific analysis, but this is a matter of in-universe backstory.

You're quoting behind the scenes toff that is never explicitlty referenced in the episode. Its not 'in-universe backstory' by any sense of the term. The only thing that supernova episode has to do with the Genesis device is that the word 'protomatter' was used on screen. That is literally the only thing. Whoopdeeshit? Protomatter was not the be-all-and-end-all of Genesis (if it was, its use in the Genesis matrix would've been doi-fucking-obvious to Saavik without David having to confess) and its a load of bollocks to say that Genesis capability isn't lost tech simply because someone re-ignited a star with protomatter.

If it wasn't lost tech, it'd be a weapon of mass destruction in the Federation arsenal that would find mention in the Federation's wars. It doesn't exist anymore, and obviously so.

[Azron_Stoma]

I always wondered exactly what Protomatter was supposed to be, I always figured it was some 3rd type from Matter and Antimatter. But the characteristics never appeared to be stated. Can regular Matter or Antimatter become Protomatter? Does it have it's own, unique periodic table? I kindof like to think of Protomatter as a Category being "Green Rocks", while each specific Element of Protomatter is a "Mynovsky Particle".

In this model I would actually refer to the Dilithium crystals used by the Federation as a form of incredibly stable Protomatter. So much so that, like how Tricobalt isn't even considered a subspace weapon, Dilithium isn't often thought of as being Protomatter. This is because of that whole "porous to antimatter" characteristic Dilithium appears to have, which kindof precludes it from being either matter, nor antimatter.

Another would be Baradium, the explosive material in Star Wars that apparently thumbs it's nose at e=mc2, used in proton torpedoes and thermal detonators to give extremely high yields in very small packages. Such a bizzarre characteristic I can't even begin to pretend to give an explaination for other than Protomatter.

[Vympel]

And the description is the same Seyetik has a background in terraforming (which they make a point of right before the protomatter reference), the visual effects are very similar, and the guy quotes Genesis as he initiates it. I listed this stuff previously.

Three points:-

* In terms of description, the scientist says a "cascade effect transforming the star's carbon and oxygen into elemental hydrogen" - whilst that's evidence for what the Federation can do now, its hardly evidence that they can flash terraform planets as proposed by Carol Marcus with Genesis.
* Having a background in terraforming doesn't mean the Federation has Genesis Devices. We already saw in TWoK that their subterannean, small-scale experiment worked just fine, but as we saw it proved nothing about the viability of large scale testing, which was a failure.
* Quoting "let there be light" when you're igniting a star isn't an indication that the Genesis Device exists either. Heck, if the Genesis Device never existed it'd still be an appropriate thing to say, no?

Watch these scenes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wh-TUoYSNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6YvhhY_N5A

2+2 = 4

Those effects are similar, but by no means the same. In "Second Sight", those orangey flashes propagate completely differently and at the very start it looks like nothing but fire. In the Genesis computer simulation the reaction propagates much differently, and is by no means intended to be taken as a firestorm.

Expanding on what I said before, in "Second Sight" the guy's terraforming idea was summed up by him as basically 100% protomatter as the catalyst, according to the script. in TWOK, the use of a protomatter was a non-obvious secret that wasn't known to anyone until David Marcus confessed his clear malfeasance and recklessness in using it.

Given the use of protomatter was 'the only way to solve certain problems' - it could be that whilst protomatter is appropriate for re-igniting a dead star, it is simply too unstable to terraform planets with. We just don't know.

Why? In addition to the logistics stuff Connor has been saying, not everyone is callous and bloodthirsty. Besides, if they want to kill things, it's not a difficult task - standard starship armament can do the job just fine.

When you're in wars for national survival, whether you're callous and bloodthirsty really doesn't enter into it. Proposing that during the Dominion War (or indeed, any war) and not have 'the Genesis Solution' enter into it is as absurd as having the US and USSR get on the brink of war and have noone mention nuclear weapons.

As far as standard starship armament, remember the Klingons trying to steal this weapon of "unlimited [or was it ultimate? either way, they had big hardons for it] power" .... "to control ... dominate" ... was a main pillar of the entire plot of ST3. Clearly, their standard starship armament is nowhere near the class of "fire torpedo at planet, instantly exterminate all life". And the magnitude of this purported threat was expounded further by the Klingon ambassador in ST4.

In essence, the very existence of the Genesis weapon would've changed the strategic calculus of the enemies of the Federation. Even if the Federation didn't have the gumption to use it if it was in its possession, it would serve as a very effective deterrent.

EDIT: and in the context of the Dominion War, if we assume only the Federation had this advantage, you don't think Gowron or Martok would be lobbying for say, the Defiant to cloak and go to Cardassia and lob a Genesis Device at it, only for the proposal to be turned down?

[Stofsk]

* Quoting "let there be light" when you're igniting a star isn't an indication that the Genesis Device exists either. Heck, if the Genesis Device never existed it'd still be an appropriate thing to say, no?

I would bet my left nut that Robert Hewitt Wolfe added that line to make a reference to WoK. This is a pretty obvious thing to pick up on, dude.

And furthermore, you're taking the 'no out of universe context' attitude too far. When the author's intent is unknown, sure it's wrong to appeal to it in an argument. When he flat out says what his intentions were, especially as it incorporates previous continuity in an inter-textual way, there is no ambiguity and therefore no need to argue about what he meant vs what he didn't. So what's the problem?

edit:

As far as standard starship armament, remember the Klingons trying to steal this weapon of "unlimited [or was it ultimate? either way, they had big hardons for it] power" .... "to control ... dominate" ... was a main pillar of the entire plot of ST3. Clearly, their standard starship armament is nowhere near the class of "fire torpedo at planet, instantly exterminate all life". And the magnitude of this purported threat was expounded further by the Klingon ambassador in ST4.

This isn't true. The Enterprise (the original) could extinguish all life on a planet by neutron bombardment ('Where No Man Has Gone Before') as well as devastate the surface of an advanced civilisation (General Order 24 in 'A Taste of Armageddon'). Furthermore, in TNG's episode 'The Chase', we see an inhabitable M-Class planet reduced to a barren wasteland by some kind of 'plasma' that was consuming the biosphere. This was a capability the Klingons had, as they were the ones who employed it in that episode.

[Vympel]

I would bet my left nut that Robert Hewitt Wolfe added that line to make a reference to WoK. This is a pretty obvious thing to pick up on, dude.

No its not. Only someone who's read the DS9 Companion would find that obvious, and that would be making the connection after the fact. That's therefore just a silly thing to bet your left nut on

And furthermore, you're taking the 'no out of universe context' attitude too far. When the author's intent is unknown, sure it's wrong to appeal to it in an argument. When he flat out says what his intentions were, especially as it incorporates previous continuity in an inter-textual way, there is no ambiguity and therefore no need to argue about what he meant vs what he didn't. So what's the problem?

Its explicit Paramount policy, no? Only whats on screen is canon for Star Trek. I don't see why that should be changed because a writer made some vague comment about his inspiration for writing the script. What's next, do I get to read into Gene Rodenberry's intro to the TMP novel that TOS is exaggerated crap? I mean, thats his intent, right? We know it, its done. Would you like that?

But frankly, even if we assign any relevance to the writer's intent, just for the sake of argument I'll go along with it - I don't see what it really demonstrates. It certainly doesn't prove that the Genesis Device exists and works now. All it proves is that someone adapted an aspect of that (failed) technology to a different, practical use.

This isn't true. The Enterprise (the original) could extinguish all life on a planet by neutron bombardment ('Where No Man Has Gone Before') as well as devastate the surface of an advanced civilisation (General Order 24 in 'A Taste of Armageddon'). Furthermore, in TNG's episode 'The Chase', we see an inhabitable M-Class planet reduced to a barren wasteland by some kind of 'plasma' that was consuming the biosphere. This was a capability the Klingons had, as they were the ones who employed it in that episode.

Sorry, I call BS. First of all:-

Where No Man Has Gone Before:-

If you have not received a signal from me within twelve hours, you'll proceed at maximum warp to the nearest Earth base with my recommendation that this entire planet be subjected to a lethal concentration of neutron radiation. No protest on this, Mark. That's an order.

You're drawing a lonnnnng bow to make out that this is somehow equally as convenient and devasting as the effect of the Genesis Device. There's no reason to believe that at all.

And all General Order 24 is the vague "destroying the planet" bumf that is a standard sci-fi trope. There's no indication how long this would take, and certainly no reason to believe that its as convenient and devastating as the Genesis Device, which is just one single torpedo.

The same applies to the so-called 'plasma reaction' in "The Chase". If shit was that easy to do, then the Cardies / Rommies could've killed the Founders in moments in TDiC (i.e. how long does it take to set up / does it work on every planet / are their countermeasures etc)

And Star Trek 3 speaks for itself - unless your argument is that the Klingons (TOS Klingons! ) are complete idiots, then I think they have a very good appraisal of their own capabilities and what weapon does/doesn't constitute unlimited power. Clearly, the above two things don't qualify, presumably because an attacking ship could be shot down well before it could finish doing what its doing.

[Metahive]

The same applies to the so-called 'plasma reaction' in "The Chase". If shit was that easy to do, then the Cardies / Rommies could've killed the Founders in moments in TDiC (i.e. how long does it take to set up / does it work on every planet / are their countermeasures etc)

The Founders are capable of surviving in space (DS9:Chimera) so just annihilating the atmosphere (and if I remember correctly that's all the Klingons did in The Chase) would have no effect on the Great Link. Torching the planet was in order.

And Star Trek 3 speaks for itself - unless your argument is that the Klingons (TOS Klingons! ) are complete idiots, then I think they have a very good appraisal of their own capabilities and what weapon does/doesn't constitute unlimited power. Clearly, the above two things don't qualify, presumably because an attacking ship could be shot down well before it could finish doing what its doing.

The atmosphere destruction from The Chase has the downside that it leaves an uninhabitable planet behind. Planets scoured with Genesis however are perfectly fine for colonisation. I think it's obvious why an agressive and expansionist species would consider this option superior.

[Vympel]

The Founders are capable of surviving in space (DS9:Chimera) so just annihilating the atmosphere (and if I remember correctly that's all the Klingons did in The Chase) would have no effect on the Great Link. Torching the planet was in order.

No, in the Chase it wasn't just annihilating the atmsophere. The process destroyed all life. It turned the planet from blue to nasty brown or something. Makes sense when you consider it was called a 'plasma reaction'. Its not like they were pulling a Spaceball One.

[Stofsk]

I would bet my left nut that Robert Hewitt Wolfe added that line to make a reference to WoK. This is a pretty obvious thing to pick up on, dude.

No its not. Only someone who's read the DS9 Companion would find that obvious, and that would be making the connection after the fact. That's therefore just a silly thing to bet your left nut on

But I haven't read the DS9 Companion. I found it obvious. What I'm saying is if I had watched this episode and my only other frame of reference was WoK, I would surmise the writer of the episode I just watched and also watched WoK, and was referencing it as part of his story.

Literary analysis 101

And furthermore, you're taking the 'no out of universe context' attitude too far. When the author's intent is unknown, sure it's wrong to appeal to it in an argument. When he flat out says what his intentions were, especially as it incorporates previous continuity in an inter-textual way, there is no ambiguity and therefore no need to argue about what he meant vs what he didn't. So what's the problem?

Its explicit Paramount policy, no? Only whats on screen is canon for Star Trek. I don't see why that should be changed because a writer made some vague comment about his inspiration for writing the script. What's next, do I get to read into Gene Rodenberry's intro to the TPM novel that TOS is exaggerated crap? I mean, thats his intent, right? We know it, its done. Would you like that?

That's irrelevant to what I said. And as for it being explicit policy, that policy has often times been relaxed to allow content that was from books or the animated series (which goes through periods of being canon and not being canon) to make it onscreen. So really, that policy doesn't even matter.

Your Gene Roddenberry comment is also irrelevant - the novelisation isn't canon, only the film is. If Gene had said 'so-and-so in the script meant x, y, z' it would be closer to what I mean with regards to Robert Wolfe's comment. BUT - if it were relevant - then I would evaluate what Gene had to say and either dismiss it or incorporate it. I wouldn't dismiss it as a matter of course.

But frankly, even if we assign any relevance to the writer's intent, just for the sake of argument I'll go along with it - I don't see what it really demonstrates. It certainly doesn't prove that the Genesis Device exists and works now. All it proves is that someone adapted an aspect of that (failed) technology to a different, practical use.

I don't want to speak for Adam but I gather that that is part of his point. People go on about 'oh the Federation hasn't got genesis tech because it's lost' etc, when this episode refers to tech that's very similar to what was established in WoK, which suggests that it isn't lost at all. That's my biggest bugbear, and I assume it is for Adam as well.

I'm not saying that the Federation will start replicating genesis torpedoes to fend off ISDs or anything, what I object to is people going 'blahblahblah LOST TECH :smugdawg:'

This isn't true. The Enterprise (the original) could extinguish all life on a planet by neutron bombardment ('Where No Man Has Gone Before') as well as devastate the surface of an advanced civilisation (General Order 24 in 'A Taste of Armageddon'). Furthermore, in TNG's episode 'The Chase', we see an inhabitable M-Class planet reduced to a barren wasteland by some kind of 'plasma' that was consuming the biosphere. This was a capability the Klingons had, as they were the ones who employed it in that episode.

Sorry, I call BS. First of all:-

Where No Man Has Gone Before:-

If you have not received a signal from me within twelve hours, you'll proceed at maximum warp to the nearest Earth base with my recommendation that this entire planet be subjected to a lethal concentration of neutron radiation. No protest on this, Mark. That's an order.

You're drawing a lonnnnng bow to make out that this is somehow equally as convenient and devasting as the effect of the Genesis Device. There's no reason to believe that at all.

And all General Order 24 is the vague "destroying the planet" bumf that is a standard sci-fi trope. There's no indication how long this would take, and certainly no reason to believe that its as convenient and devastating as the Genesis Device, which is just one single torpedo.

The same applies to the so-called 'plasma reaction' in "The Chase". If shit was that easy to do, then the Cardies / Rommies could've killed the Founders in moments in TDiC (i.e. how long does it take to set up / does it work on every planet / are their countermeasures etc)[/quote]
I never said it was equally convenient or devastating as the genesis device. The biggest factor in the use of a genesis torpedo as a WMD is how quickly it works. One ship, with a cloaking device, could deploy it quite easily and then gtfo as quickly afterwards.

Re: neutron bombardment. You're right there is no indication in the script that the process would take a short amount of time, but I never said it would. What I said was that it's stated effect would encompass the entire planet, not just a localised spot (say the location where Gary was and an area radius of several hundred kilometres 'just to be sure').

Re: GO24. It's not really vague:

This is the commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise. All cities and installations on Eminiar 7 have been located, identified, and fed into our fire control system. In 1 hour and 45 minutes, the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed. You have that long to surrender your hostages.

Seriously, what's vague about that? The only thing that's not really clear is what yield their firepower is and how long it will take. Other than that, one ship in Star Trek is capable of meting out planetary wide devastation.

As for the plasma reaction in 'The Chase', they could have used that on the Founder's planet in 'The Die Is Cast' - assuming they had it. It was a Klingon device after all. But ok, they didn't employ something like that. They used regular disruptors and torpedoes. Perhaps this is more reliable? It's possible the plasma reaction takes time or is reversible if caught early enough. However, another possibility is that the Founders had infiltrated that fleet, so there's no telling what methods they could have employed to steer the project the way they wanted it. Lovok could have said they had no such device available, would he be lying or telling the truth? Any attempts to procure one from the Klingons would be guaranteed to be met with failure. Maybe Lovok convinced Tain the best route would be to just get a fleet and bomb the planet instead of employing a specific device that may be intercepted or countered. (the Dominion can penetrate the Romulan cloaking device, so putting all your eggs in one basket might be foolhardy - better to send a fleet of ships and attack in force rather than one ship which would be vulnerable to any possible defences or patrolling ships that are there).

And Star Trek 3 speaks for itself - unless your argument is that the Klingons (TOS Klingons! ) are complete idiots, then I think they have a very good appraisal of their own capabilities and what weapon does/doesn't constitute unlimited power. Clearly, the above two things don't qualify, presumably because an attacking ship could be shot down well before it could finish doing what its doing.

No, that's not really my argument. Your argument was that standard starship armament was 'nowhere near' what a single device could do to a planet a la the genesis torpedo. What I'm saying is that standard starship armament is more than capable of destroying a planet, it just doesn't have the convenience as a single device. If I misunderstood your argument then I apologise; upon rereading what you wrote, it appears that you're focused on the 'ease of use' ability the genesis device would give for an WMD, which I agree with.

On the other hand, in Generations it was established and later made a plot point in DS9 that the use of trilithium warheads can destroy stars, which really shows that WMD technology is pretty frightening in the ST universe. (a lot more frightening than people really give it credit for, tbh) As an aside, Dax noted that the runabout Yukon had trilithium, 'tekasite' and protomatter onboard. Maybe the Founders have genesis technology! (PS that was a joke)

The same applies to the so-called 'plasma reaction' in "The Chase". If shit was that easy to do, then the Cardies / Rommies could've killed the Founders in moments in TDiC (i.e. how long does it take to set up / does it work on every planet / are their countermeasures etc)

The Founders are capable of surviving in space (DS9:Chimera) so just annihilating the atmosphere (and if I remember correctly that's all the Klingons did in The Chase) would have no effect on the Great Link. Torching the planet was in order.

And Star Trek 3 speaks for itself - unless your argument is that the Klingons (TOS Klingons! ) are complete idiots, then I think they have a very good appraisal of their own capabilities and what weapon does/doesn't constitute unlimited power. Clearly, the above two things don't qualify, presumably because an attacking ship could be shot down well before it could finish doing what its doing.

The atmosphere destruction from The Chase has the downside that it leaves an uninhabitable planet behind. Planets scoured with Genesis however are perfectly fine for colonisation. I think it's obvious why an agressive and expansionist species would consider this option superior.

Data also said that all life was being destroyed, so I imagine the same would apply to the Founders.

[Metahive]

Whatever the means, Founders are ridiculously resilient and can even morph into fire or light (however that works) if they want, so I still don't think the weapon used by the Klingons in The Chase would have sufficed to eliminate them. Which makes me wonder why Changelings can even be killed at all.

Anyway, removing the atmosphere of a planet would lead to its star's radiation quickly turning its surface into a barren wasteland. The Enterprise arrived some time after the Klingons had deployed their weapon so maybe that's what we saw accelerated for dramatic effect but I'm not going to insist.

[Vympel]

But I haven't read the DS9 Companion. I found it obvious. What I'm saying is if I had watched this episode and my only other frame of reference was WoK, I would surmise the writer of the episode I just watched and also watched WoK, and was referencing it as part of his story.

Literary analysis 101

You found it obvious when? When you were watching the episode? Or thinking about it whilst reading this thread? If the former, that just makes you an even bigger nerd than us normal nerds.

That's irrelevant to what I said. And as for it being explicit policy, that policy has often times been relaxed to allow content that was from books or the animated series (which goes through periods of being canon and not being canon) to make it onscreen. So really, that policy doesn't even matter.

Stuff from books or the animated series isn't 'forbidden' to ever be canon. That's not what canon is about. The point is that they're not canon until they get on screen. Before that, they're just crap. But if that crap appears on screen - it ceases to be crap.

Your Gene Roddenberry comment is also irrelevant - the novelisation isn't canon, only the film is. If Gene had said 'so-and-so in the script meant x, y, z' it would be closer to what I mean with regards to Robert Wolfe's comment. BUT - if it were relevant - then I would evaluate what Gene had to say and either dismiss it or incorporate it. I wouldn't dismiss it as a matter of course.

You're lawyering as much as anyone does about canon now, no? Gene Rodenberry's introduction is a clear indication of his intent regarding TOS, by 'literary analysis' standards (such as they are). Heck, that's amply backed up by Paula Block's (and others, IIRC) statements about how Gene didn't really like TOS much anymore and had decanonized much of it. Luckily, Paramount doesn't go by "whatever the writer made up in his head whilst he was writing stuff". This is the reason why the whole 'literary anaylsis' "lets parse writer statements about stuff" canard bothers me.

I don't want to speak for Adam but I gather that that is part of his point. People go on about 'oh the Federation hasn't got genesis tech because it's lost' etc, when this episode refers to tech that's very similar to what was established in WoK, which suggests that it isn't lost at all. That's my biggest bugbear, and I assume it is for Adam as well.

I'm not saying that the Federation will start replicating genesis torpedoes to fend off ISDs or anything, what I object to is people going 'blahblahblah LOST TECH :smugdawg:'

The Genesis Device itself is lost technology. Adapted technology from a failed program? That's a different issue. Any reason to believe that adapted technology has been (or could be) weaponised? Not really.

I never said it was equally convenient or devastating as the genesis device. The biggest factor in the use of a genesis torpedo as a WMD is how quickly it works. One ship, with a cloaking device, could deploy it quite easily and then gtfo as quickly afterwards.

Re: neutron bombardment. You're right there is no indication in the script that the process would take a short amount of time, but I never said it would. What I said was that it's stated effect would encompass the entire planet, not just a localised spot (say the location where Gary was and an area radius of several hundred kilometres 'just to be sure').

Re: GO24. It's not really vague:

Seriously, what's vague about that? The only thing that's not really clear is what yield their firepower is and how long it will take. Other than that, one ship in Star Trek is capable of meting out planetary wide devastation.

Yeah, GO24 is clearly "target all cities and installations and shoot at them".Its certainly got nothing on the Genesis Device, which was my point. Blowing up cities and installations is waaaaaaaaaaaay down the totem pole from that.

Note, I never intended to say that ST ships couldn't devastate a planet. Its obvious that they could. But that their capability to accomplish that task clearly falls below the Genesis Device.

As for the plasma reaction in 'The Chase', they could have used that on the Founder's planet in 'The Die Is Cast' - assuming they had it. It was a Klingon device after all. But ok, they didn't employ something like that. They used regular disruptors and torpedoes. Perhaps this is more reliable? It's possible the plasma reaction takes time or is reversible if caught early enough. However, another possibility is that the Founders had infiltrated that fleet, so there's no telling what methods they could have employed to steer the project the way they wanted it. Lovok could have said they had no such device available, would he be lying or telling the truth? Any attempts to procure one from the Klingons would be guaranteed to be met with failure. Maybe Lovok convinced Tain the best route would be to just get a fleet and bomb the planet instead of employing a specific device that may be intercepted or countered. (the Dominion can penetrate the Romulan cloaking device, so putting all your eggs in one basket might be foolhardy - better to send a fleet of ships and attack in force rather than one ship which would be vulnerable to any possible defences or patrolling ships that are there).

We can speculate ourselves into a frenzy, but I think its reasonable to assume that if they had any weapon as devastating, quick and final as Genesis in their arsenal it'd figure into the evidence at some point.

No, that's not really my argument. Your argument was that standard starship armament was 'nowhere near' what a single device could do to a planet a la the genesis torpedo. What I'm saying is that standard starship armament is more than capable of destroying a planet, it just doesn't have the convenience as a single device. If I misunderstood your argument then I apologise; upon rereading what you wrote, it appears that you're focused on the 'ease of use' ability the genesis device would give for an WMD, which I agree with.

Yup, see above.

On the other hand, in Generations it was established and later made a plot point in DS9 that the use of trilithium warheads can destroy stars, which really shows that WMD technology is pretty frightening in the ST universe. (a lot more frightening than people really give it credit for, tbh) As an aside, Dax noted that the runabout Yukon had trilithium, 'tekasite' and protomatter onboard. Maybe the Founders have genesis technology! (PS that was a joke)

Generations does establish that - and it also establishes that such a weapon was never conceived / in possession by anyone except Soran (which is why the Duras were so desperate to get it - and again they called this a weapon of ultimate power, lol) - and independently - later (in a far less efficient package), by the Dominion as DS9 demonstrates. Of course, with the Dominion, such weapon was never heard from again, but its the only race that canonically has that capability.

(Of course, its an open question just why the Dominion didn't just shoot a long range torpedo at the Bajor star to accomplish the same feat)

[Stofsk]

But I haven't read the DS9 Companion. I found it obvious. What I'm saying is if I had watched this episode and my only other frame of reference was WoK, I would surmise the writer of the episode I just watched and also watched WoK, and was referencing it as part of his story.

Literary analysis 101

You found it obvious when? When you were watching the episode? Or thinking about it whilst reading this thread? If the former, that just makes you an even bigger nerd than us normal nerds.

When I was reading this thread. If I had watched the episode in question I would have made the same connection as well, considering all the other things that are in the script that ties it to Genesis.

Stuff from books or the animated series isn't 'forbidden' to ever be canon. That's not what canon is about. The point is that they're not canon until they get on screen. Before that, they're just crap. But if that crap appears on screen - it ceases to be crap.

Here's where you and I disagree then, I wouldn't consider stuff that is off-screen to be crap i.e. not counted. Even if it isn't part of Paramount's policy.

Your Gene Roddenberry comment is also irrelevant - the novelisation isn't canon, only the film is. If Gene had said 'so-and-so in the script meant x, y, z' it would be closer to what I mean with regards to Robert Wolfe's comment. BUT - if it were relevant - then I would evaluate what Gene had to say and either dismiss it or incorporate it. I wouldn't dismiss it as a matter of course.

You're lawyering as much as anyone does about canon now, no? Gene Rodenberry's introduction is a clear indication of his intent regarding TOS, by 'literary analysis' standards (such as they are). Heck, that's amply backed up by Paula Block's (and others, IIRC) statements about how Gene didn't really like TOS much anymore and had decanonized much of it. Luckily, Paramount doesn't go by "whatever the writer made up in his head whilst he was writing stuff". This is the reason why the whole 'literary anaylsis' "lets parse writer statements about stuff" canard bothers me.

Lit analysis has more to do with 'what's onscreen' than you give it credit for. The difference is that it doesn't stay onscreen forever. There is stuff that goes on behind the scenes, stuff that is inter-textual (like between show references, like genesis in WoK and a similar thing turning up in DS9). For what it's worth, literary analysis doesn't and never has depended on author's intent. In most cases, it is irrelevant - why? Because 9 times out of 10 the author is deliberately being ambiguous and most are also reluctant to say what their intentions are because they want the reader or the audience to figure it out for themselves. There are other reasons too. But if say, the writer were to explicitly say 'this is what I intended when I wrote this book/play/script' then that's something different.

I wouldn't say that's lawyering about canon. Frankly, I don't give a shit what is or is not canon in Star Trek. There are so many things that are inconsistent between shows and even inside shows that it is easier for me to ignore what's canon than it is to try and explain those inconsistencies. One of the biggest problems with the canon literalists here is that there are somethings that cannot be explained by any other method than out-of-universe contexts. Stuff like vfx gaffes or things like Data getting a scientific unit wrong. If you try to explain it in-universe, it comes off as lame. Like 'Data is obviously a moron lol'. What's the benefit of an explanation like that, when it violates suspension of disbelief? (the ACTUAL meaning of that literary term)

The Genesis Device itself is lost technology. Adapted technology from a failed program? That's a different issue. Any reason to believe that adapted technology has been (or could be) weaponised? Not really.

Why not? The genesis device itself may be lost, but what's the reason that the Federation can't simply start again?

Yeah, GO24 is clearly "target all cities and installations and shoot at them".Its certainly got nothing on the Genesis Device, which was my point. Blowing up cities and installations is waaaaaaaaaaaay down the totem pole from that.

Actually to be honest, I interpret that dialogue to be a bit more (like way more) powerful than simply taking out cities. But otherwise I agree with you.

We can speculate ourselves into a frenzy, but I think its reasonable to assume that if they had any weapon as devastating, quick and final as Genesis in their arsenal it'd figure into the evidence at some point.

Actually metahive brings up an interesting point about how the Founders are pretty resilient. The original planet they were living on was M-class but wasn't in a solar system. It's quite possible that the fleet in 'TDiC' surmised that its biosphere was wholly artificial and could counteract such a device as the one employed in 'The Chase'.

Besides, people bash Trek all the time for [TECH] solutions, when in 'TDiC' they went with a brute force approach (that ended up failing, but not because it wouldn't work but because IT WAS A TRAPPP/ackbar)

Generations does establish that - and it also establishes that such a weapon was never conceived / in possession by anyone except Soran (which is why the Duras were so desperate to get it - and again they called this a weapon of ultimate power, lol) - and independently - later (in a far less efficient package), by the Dominion as DS9 demonstrates. Of course, with the Dominion, such weapon was never heard from again, but its the only race that canonically has that capability.

I don't know if it establishes that Soran was the only dude who knew how to do it. I thought the Romulans were after him because he stole shit from them to use in the weapon. Picard in 'Starship Mine' points out how trilithium is a dangerous substance used in weapons technology, and it's a byproduct of their engines. But I haven't watched Generations in ages so please don't make me.

There might be other reasons why it's not common or if they don't have the capability. Non proliferation treaties for example.

(Of course, its an open question just why the Dominion didn't just shoot a long range torpedo at the Bajor star to accomplish the same feat)

Of course. Maybe they figured that it would be better to occupy the station and use it as a starbase with access to the wormhole, rather than wipe everything out and have to set up a new base there. Even a long range torpedo can be intercepted though.