Trek Fleet counts

[Stofsk]

150 member worlds is what I think the interpretation of that line means.

Kirk said to Zephram Cochrane in 'Metamorphosis' that 'we're on a thousand worlds and spreading out.' He may even have only been referring to mankind, but that's not necessarily important.

[Kythnos]

150 member worlds is what I think the interpretation of that line means.

Kirk said to Zephram Cochrane in 'Metamorphosis' that 'we're on a thousand worlds and spreading out.' He may even have only been referring to mankind, but that's not necessarily important.

As I understand it the "Member worlds" are those with Warp drive capable civilizations, and who joined the Federation viva treaty or whatever they need to do. The 150 worlds do not count the worlds under the Federations "protection", like all those planets the Kirk conquered, or worlds that are not independent and/or self-sufficient.

[SeaTrooper]

150 member worlds is what I think the interpretation of that line means.

Kirk said to Zephram Cochrane in 'Metamorphosis' that 'we're on a thousand worlds and spreading out.' He may even have only been referring to mankind, but that's not necessarily important.

As I understand it the "Member worlds" are those with Warp drive capable civilizations, and who joined the Federation viva treaty or whatever they need to do. The 150 worlds do not count the worlds under the Federations "protection", like all those planets the Kirk conquered, or worlds that are not independent and/or self-sufficient.

Yes, treating the 150 stated as only being those worlds who had met ALL of the Fed's membership requirements (being warp-capable was just the start) makes some sense. The thousand that Kirk refers to may, therefore, be those such as the Ba'kus world as seen in Insurrection. They are worlds (and systems) within Fed territory, but do not necessarily meet the standards for membership. That they are still considered to be Fed worlds, even if getting absolutely nothing of value out of it (let alone being contacted), was one of the central tenets of ST:I.

[Azron_Stoma]

Also it would likely include worlds like the sort we see all the time in TOS which are completely barren save for one instillation or two.

[Stofsk]

Yeah, Kirk's really going to count those sort of worlds to entice Zephram Cochrane back to civilisation.

'Hey come with me - we have a thousand worlds, the vast majority of which are barren uninhabited installations - wanna go see them?'

Get this guys - he's talking about people, colonies, alien races who are members of the Federation, not about uninhabited worlds with automated factories on them. I've already given a rationalisation for the discrepancy between TOS and First Contact.

[Darth Hoth]

Hope this not infringing on your territory, Serafina . . .

Face it: Empire is tyrant dictatorship, and most of its population was not happy with it. So what you think will happen when population hears about - by their standards - Utopian society? Mere prospect of creating such society can cause large-scale revolutions if current society is bad enough (1917. revolution in Russia) and Empire is pretty much on verge of collapse.

Right, feel free to prove this any time. That should be easy, especially using your personal (anti-EU) canon definition.

Film dialogue describes the Rebellion as utterly insignificant. Which bears out, since the EpVI novelisation shows that the Endor fleet was crewed by every single rebel in the million-world empire. Now, there are certain EU sources that go against this, but using the strict canon hierarchy those are overridden. So, in G-canon the Rebellion is tinier, relative to the scale of the setting, than the Branch Davidians.

The same novelisation also shows that Palpatine was beloved by the galaxy, and that he would be mourned by all the numerous Empire loyalists when he died; he was a villain with good publicity. Which is quite to the contrary of your interpretation.


Of course, even if the Empire was Galactic North Korea, I doubt a Federation propaganda feed would get many converts. Their (TNG-style) society is so utterly unrealistic sociologically that anyone who heard of it would immediately dismiss it as bad propaganda. "The USSR - We have the world's tallest dwarfs and shortest giants!"

For that matter, would anyone even want to live in the Tau Empire Federation, where no one is paid for their work and everyone works for the Greater Good?

[Darth Hoth]

Yeah, Kirk's really going to count those sort of worlds to entice Zephram Cochrane back to civilisation.

'Hey come with me - we have a thousand worlds, the vast majority of which are barren uninhabited installations - wanna go see them?'

Get this guys - he's talking about people, colonies, alien races who are members of the Federation, not about uninhabited worlds with automated factories on them. I've already given a rationalisation for the discrepancy between TOS and First Contact.

If it was all about enticing him, why do we even assume he was telling the truth at all? It is not as though Cochrane was in any position to check up on his claims, after all.

That said, since Cochrane was supposedly an astronaut way back when space travel was still uncommon before he crashed on Whatever-the-planet-was-called, I have no problem with Kirk thinking he would be impressed even with small bases on far-off exotic planets.

[Stofsk]

Wow, so now Kirk's a liar.

Hey, how do we know Picard was telling the truth or giving 100% accurate information for that matter? Because the number he says is smaller? Lily also asked Picard how big the ship is, and he said it had 24 decks; later in the film this was contradicted by a goldshirt who said the Borg controlled decks 26 to 11. In Nemesis it had 29 decks! And a bottomless pit there as well! But Picard's facts are straight, Kirk's the one who's lying. Riiight.

To repeat my easy to understand rationalisation, Picard was talking about the member race's homeworlds, while Kirk was taking into account the colonies the Federation has - or how many colonies Earth has. What precisely is wrong with this rationalisation? It lets both TOS and TNG exist happily without contradicting each other, unlike plenty of other things which TNG changed. And we don't have to invent suspension of disbelief wrecking bullshit like 'Kirk was lying' or 'Picard was full of shit'. Neither one of them have a motive to lie.

[Darth Hoth]

Wow, so now Kirk's a liar.

Hey, how do we know Picard was telling the truth or giving 100% accurate information for that matter? Because the number he says is smaller? Lily also asked Picard how big the ship is, and he said it had 24 decks; later in the film this was contradicted by a goldshirt who said the Borg controlled decks 26 to 11. In Nemesis it had 29 decks! And a bottomless pit there as well! But Picard's facts are straight, Kirk's the one who's lying. Riiight.

No, it was a counter-argument to your "He can't obviously not never have meant the very population scarce colonies/outposts we see every now and then throughout TOS because he was enticing him back to civilisation" presentation. If enticement is so important, why does he not use as large a number as possible to make the Federation sound as impressive as possible to Cochrane, including the mostly unpopulated rocks? And indeed, if that is the prime angle, and enticement is what matters, why would he not lie? You brought up the "enticement" bit, not I.

Me, I believe he meant what he said, a thousand planets . . . including the Federation's smaller outposts.

And while it is not germane to the major thrust of my argument, as an aside, KIrk can and does bluff and lie when necessary. You need not look all shocked at the suggestion, like I somehow insulted the awesome shining white knight.

To repeat my easy to understand rationalisation, Picard was talking about the member race's homeworlds, while Kirk was taking into account the colonies the Federation has - or how many colonies Earth has. What precisely is wrong with this rationalisation? It lets both TOS and TNG exist happily without contradicting each other, unlike plenty of other things which TNG changed. And we don't have to invent suspension of disbelief wrecking bullshit like 'Kirk was lying' or 'Picard was full of shit'. Neither one of them have a motive to lie.

I have no problem with it as such. My issue was that you also concluded, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that the Federation colonies could not include the small outposts . . . because those would not sound sufficiently impressive to Cochrane to mention. Or . . . something.

[Stofsk]

Wow, so now Kirk's a liar.

Hey, how do we know Picard was telling the truth or giving 100% accurate information for that matter? Because the number he says is smaller? Lily also asked Picard how big the ship is, and he said it had 24 decks; later in the film this was contradicted by a goldshirt who said the Borg controlled decks 26 to 11. In Nemesis it had 29 decks! And a bottomless pit there as well! But Picard's facts are straight, Kirk's the one who's lying. Riiight.

No, it was a counter-argument to your "He can't obviously not never have meant the very population scarce colonies/outposts we see every now and then throughout TOS because he was enticing him back to civilisation" presentation. If enticement is so important, why does he not use as large a number as possible to make the Federation sound as impressive as possible to Cochrane, including the mostly unpopulated rocks?

Because that's stupid. Azroma Stoma said it's likely he was talking about the barren worlds which only have a single installation on them. He said that without any proof, but I don't see you pointing that out either.

And indeed, if that is the prime angle, and enticement is what matters, why would he not lie? You brought up the "enticement" bit, not I.

And he absolutely has to lie in order to entice him does he? Maybe he was telling the truth - and the truth itself can be an enticement?

Me, I believe he meant what he said, a thousand planets . . . including the Federation's smaller outposts.

So why are you arguing?

And while it is not germane to the major thrust of my argument, as an aside, KIrk can and does bluff and lie when necessary. You need not look all shocked at the suggestion, like I somehow insulted the awesome shining white knight.

No, I'm shocked at the assumption he could have been lying at all - for no reason or motive. 'Why do we assume he must be telling the truth?' That's what you said. Of course Kirk's bluffed and lied before, but with people who have shot at him or have shown hostile intent. He was speaking to Zephram Cochrane, a man out of the history book, so his motive for lying to him is non-existent. And Cochrane specifically asked him what the galaxy is like.

I have no problem with it as such. My issue was that you also concluded, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that the Federation colonies could not include the small outposts . . . because those would not sound sufficiently impressive to Cochrane to mention. Or . . . something.

Or something indeed. Here's the full scene:

Kirk: Mr. Cochrane, if you left here, what would happen to you?

Cochrane: I'd begin to age again -- normally.

Kirk: Do you want to leave here?

Cochrane: Believe me, Captain, immortality consists largely of boredom. What's it like out there in the galaxy?

Kirk: We're on 1,000 planets and spreading out. We cross fantastic distances, and everything's alive, Cochrane. Life everywhere. We estimate there are millions of planets with intelligent life. We haven't begun to map them. Interesting?

So yeah, Kirk was talking about unmanned or sparsely populated barren shit holes when he's talking about 'life everywhere' in answering Cochrane's question of what the galaxy is like.

[Darth Hoth]

Because that's stupid. Azroma Stoma said it's likely he was talking about the barren worlds which only have a single installation on them. He said that without any proof, but I don't see you pointing that out either.

Um . . . because those are Federation planets? Why would they not count? Just because they are too small and unimpressive to be impressive?

And he absolutely has to lie in order to entice him does he? Maybe he was telling the truth - and the truth itself can be an enticement?

No, he does not. He also does not have to exclude the small colonies/outposts. My original point was that appealing to "enticement" does not work, and can be easily twisted around the other way.

So why are you arguing?

Because I disagreed with your blanket disallowing of the small outposts.

No, I'm shocked at the assumption he could have been lying at all - for no reason or motive. 'Why do we assume he must be telling the truth?' That's what you said. Of course Kirk's bluffed and lied before, but with people who have shot at him or have shown hostile intent. He was speaking to Zephram Cochrane, a man out of the history book, so his motive for lying to him is non-existent. And Cochrane specifically asked him what the galaxy is like.

Considering the fact that they wanted to get off the planet in a real hurry (They had a dying woman who urgently needed medical attention!), I can easily see why Kirk would think it necessary to lie, or at least bend the truth, if it would have gotten them on their way quicker. A young human life that he felt personally responsible for would be more important right there and then than being nice to the local hermit, even if he was a historical hero.

Again, in the context of the scene, I do not believe that he actually did lie. But the situation could easily warrant it, if it had been his aim to entice Cochrane.

Or something indeed. Here's the full scene:

Kirk: Mr. Cochrane, if you left here, what would happen to you?

Cochrane: I'd begin to age again -- normally.

Kirk: Do you want to leave here?

Cochrane: Believe me, Captain, immortality consists largely of boredom. What's it like out there in the galaxy?

Kirk: We're on 1,000 planets and spreading out. We cross fantastic distances, and everything's alive, Cochrane. Life everywhere. We estimate there are millions of planets with intelligent life. We haven't begun to map them. Interesting?

So yeah, Kirk was talking about unmanned or sparsely populated barren shit holes when he's talking about 'life everywhere' in answering Cochrane's question of what the galaxy is like.

To me it looks like "life everywhere" would more appropriately refer to the following sentence, where he speaks of the estimated millions of planets with strange new worlds and exciting new cultures to discover. Nothing in this passage even implies ruling out the Federation's smaller colonies as part of the 1,000 planets.

[Stofsk]

Because that's stupid. Azroma Stoma said it's likely he was talking about the barren worlds which only have a single installation on them. He said that without any proof, but I don't see you pointing that out either.

Um . . . because those are Federation planets? Why would they not count? Just because they are too small and unimpressive to be impressive?

Because of the assumption SeaTrooper and Azroma Stoma made that these worlds are somehow a majority - SeaTrooper implied that they weren't even Federation members, while Azroma Stoma felt he had to point out 'all' those planets which are 'completely barren save for one instillation[sic] or two.'

We see how many of those throughout the show? And Cochrane asked Kirk what the galaxy was like, and the quote was 'We're on a thousand worlds and spreading out...' Why on earth would Kirk be referring to barren, uninhabited worlds like, say for example, Delta Vega, which has an automated lithium cracking facility but is otherwise uninhabited?

Sure those might count, but when the context is Kirk saying 'we' - and he could be talking about 'we' as in humanity, or 'we' as in the members of the United Federation of Planets, or both - are on a thousand planets, and spreading out, it seems silly to take that line and go 'well most of those worlds are probably barren and uninhabited/not even members of the Federation.'

And he absolutely has to lie in order to entice him does he? Maybe he was telling the truth - and the truth itself can be an enticement?

No, he does not. He also does not have to exclude the small colonies/outposts. My original point was that appealing to "enticement" does not work, and can be easily twisted around the other way.

And my original point is that it's silly to take that line and assume Kirk is referring to barren worlds with nobody on them, or what SeaTrooper implied that most of those thousand worlds aren't even Federation members!

Considering the fact that they wanted to get off the planet in a real hurry (They had a dying woman who urgently needed medical attention!), I can easily see why Kirk would think it necessary to lie, or at least bend the truth, if it would have gotten them on their way quicker. A young human life that he felt personally responsible for would be more important right there and then than being nice to the local hermit, even if he was a historical hero.

Again, in the context of the scene, I do not believe that he actually did lie. But the situation could easily warrant it, if it had been his aim to entice Cochrane.

Well if you don't think he's lying, and if I don't think he's lying, can we therefore agree we both don't think he was lying and spare ourselves this merry-go-round?

To me it looks like "life everywhere" would more appropriately refer to the following sentence, where he speaks of the estimated millions of planets with strange new worlds and exciting new cultures to discover. Nothing in this passage even implies ruling out the Federation's smaller colonies as part of the 1,000 planets.

I'm not ruling out smaller colonies, I'm ruling out the barren planets with only one installation on it and no people like Azroma Stoma says, or the majority of those thousand planets not even being Federation members as SeaTrooper says.

[Darth Hoth]

Because of the assumption SeaTrooper and Azroma Stoma made that these worlds are somehow a majority - SeaTrooper implied that they weren't even Federation members, while Azroma Stoma felt he had to point out 'all' those planets which are 'completely barren save for one instillation[sic] or two.'

We see how many of those throughout the show? And Cochrane asked Kirk what the galaxy was like, and the quote was 'We're on a thousand worlds and spreading out...' Why on earth would Kirk be referring to barren, uninhabited worlds like, say for example, Delta Vega, which has an automated lithium cracking facility but is otherwise uninhabited?

Sure those might count, but when the context is Kirk saying 'we' - and he could be talking about 'we' as in humanity, or 'we' as in the members of the United Federation of Planets, or both - are on a thousand planets, and spreading out, it seems silly to take that line and go 'well most of those worlds are probably barren and uninhabited/not even members of the Federation.'

"Most" of them would not have to be, as per the dialogue, so I can actually agree with that. As I noted, my problem was that it seemed as though you were saying that none of them could be.

Well if you don't think he's lying, and if I don't think he's lying, can we therefore agree we both don't think he was lying and spare ourselves this merry-go-round?

Well, since we now seem closer to each other on the main issue, anyway, fine with me.

I'm not ruling out smaller colonies, I'm ruling out the barren planets with only one installation on it and no people like Azroma Stoma says, or the majority of those thousand planets not even being Federation members as SeaTrooper says.

I would think the one-installation planets would count. But they would not necessarily be "most" of the Federation.

[Serafina]

Have we ever seen a Federation planet that wasn't a major planet (like earth) that had any military significance whatsoever? Did we see that any of these 150 member planets (assuming that Picard was talking about species home planets or the like) having shipyards, significant starbases or anything like that?

As far as i know, the Empire could easily ignore all of those. They might be important to the Federation due to politics and perhaps due to their strategic location - but the Empire will only care about the former if they want to exploit it and won't care about the latter at all due to speed difference.
It looks like they basically only have to take out Earth, maybe Vulcan and perhaps a handful other worlds/starbases. After that, the Federation would be utterly crippled.

That would actually make sense in Star Trek as well - we saw that the other major players (Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians) were essentially single-planet empires with a couple of outposts and resource-colonies. They certainly don't have dozens of worlds with populations in the billions.
Even if we assume that the other species-homeworlds are only half as strong in terms of population/industry/resources/military than Earth or Romulus, then the Federation should be massively superior to it's neighbors - by orders of magnitudes. But while they are superior, it's not such a big difference.
That would make sense if most homeworlds contribute little or nothing to Starfleets military strength and instead use their resources to make their citizens happy. In fact, that even appears to be the case on Earth, which has nearly no industry.

Hence, it appears that most Federation-worlds are pretty insignificant. Most have apparently no military value beyond supplying some resources - which are managed and concentrated next to earth. After all, Earth Spacedock is the largest and most significant starport.
Therefore, the number of member worlds is relatively insignificant. Earth is a massive, central target of government AND industry. Taking it out will likely cripple the Federation, if only because their government was just annihilated and they rely on a command economy.

[Picard]

Have we ever seen a Federation planet that wasn't a major planet (like earth) that had any military significance whatsoever? Did we see that any of these 150 member planets (assuming that Picard was talking about species home planets or the like) having shipyards, significant starbases or anything like that?

Unknown. But as for shipyards, these are NOT only in Solar system. List of Federation shipyards as following, with location in brackets:
40 Eridani A Starfleet Construction Yards (40 Eridani A)
Antares Ship Yards (Bajoran Sector)
Baikonur Cosmodrome (Earth)
Beta Antares Ship Yards (Antares Sector)
Copernicus Ship Yards (Moon)
Earth Station McKinley (Earth)
Luna Shipyards (Moon)
Marin County Starfleet Yards (in and above Marin County, San Fracisco Bay area, Earth. Alternate timeline, possibly exist in "normal" timeline as well)
Oakland Fleet Yards (Alternate timeline, possibly exists in "normal" timeline as well)
Proxima Maintenance Yards (Proxima Centauri)
Riverside Shipyards (Riverside, Iowa, Earth. Alternate reality)
San Francisco Fleet Yards (Earth)
Tranquility Base (Moon, on and/or above Mare Tranquillitatis area on Moon)
Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards (Mars, in and above Utipia Planitia region.


Also note that most larger starbases and outposts are also capable of repairing and building ships, but I listed dedicated shipyards only.

Here is picture of some of Utopia Planitia orbital facilities:
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... tYards.jpg

Utopia Planitia is easily most important UFP shipyard, since it seems to be not only (presumably major) shipbuilding facility, but also major development facility.

It looks like they basically only have to take out Earth, maybe Vulcan and perhaps a handful other worlds/starbases. After that, the Federation would be utterly crippled.

And how they will take out these? Due to firepower, energy production and sublight manouverability advantage of ST ships and planetary shields that are known to exist on major Federation worlds (like Earth) any engagement will result in Starfleet and/or fixed defences (like starbases) inflicting severe losses on Imperial task force. As I said before, Empire may and probably will win but it will be costly victory.

That would actually make sense in Star Trek as well - we saw that the other major players (Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians) were essentially single-planet empires with a couple of outposts and resource-colonies. They certainly don't have dozens of worlds with populations in the billions.

We know that total population of Federation is above 900 billion, maybe 1.2 to 2 trillion. Klingons and Romulans are not strong enough to take Federation one-on-one, but I would not give population count smaller than 200-500 billion to any of these. Which mans they are NOT single-planet empires, and probably have dozens of large planets which we don't hear about.

That would make sense if most homeworlds contribute little or nothing to Starfleets military strength and instead use their resources to make their citizens happy. In fact, that even appears to be the case on Earth, which has nearly no industry.

Trying to artificially create weakness Federation does not have... shipyard list I posted above is enough to prove you wrong.

Hence, it appears that most Federation-worlds are pretty insignificant. Most have apparently no military value beyond supplying some resources - which are managed and concentrated next to earth.

Unsupported and contradicted...

After all, Earth Spacedock is the largest and most significant starport.

Neither of which is true. Model itself was used and re-used, not only as Earth Spacedock, but also for Starbases 74, 84, 133, and Lya Station Alpha. All were of same or similar size. Starbase 74 was in orbit of Tarsas III. Starbase 84 was near Romulan Neutral Zone. Starbase 133 and Lya Station Alpha are on unknown location. SB-74, 133 and LySA all seem to be far larger than Earth Spacedock - Constitution class fits neatly in ESD entrance, and Galaxy class fits similarly in entrance of these starbases. However, screenshots on Memory Alpha decipting ships near these starbases seem to indicate that all three are of similar size to Earth Spacedock.

Therefore, the number of member worlds is relatively insignificant. Earth is a massive, central target of government AND industry. Taking it out will likely cripple the Federation, if only because their government was just annihilated and they rely on a command economy.

Simply wrong.

[Big Phil]

Picard, you're about a decade too late with your idiocy. Go and read the main site, digest and understand the magnitude of the differences in speed and power generation between the Federation and the Empire, and then come back and have a discussion. Until then, you're just repeating Trekkie idiocy from 10+ years ago and using Wall of Ignorance tactics.

[Serafina]

I won't look up Federation shipyards right now, but IIRC we know that most of their ship designs originate from a major shipyard within the solar system (Utopia Planetia?).

And how they will take out these? Due to firepower, energy production and sublight manouverability advantage of ST ships and planetary shields that are known to exist on major Federation worlds (like Earth) any engagement will result in Starfleet and/or fixed defences (like starbases) inflicting severe losses on Imperial task force. As I said before, Empire may and probably will win but it will be costly victory.

Aah, back to our wall of ignorance, aren't we?
Take a Death Star, jump into the solar system, blow up Earth or target whatever space station you want to. You have done nothing to address that point, to which the Federation has absolutely no counter.

We know that total population of Federation is above 900 billion, maybe 1.2 to 2 trillion. Klingons and Romulans are not strong enough to take Federation one-on-one, but I would not give population count smaller than 200-500 billion to any of these. Which mans they are NOT single-planet empires, and probably have dozens of large planets which we don't hear about.

So instead of taking my explanation which is consistent with what we see, you are making one up that we never see or hear anything about.

Trying to artificially create weakness Federation does not have... shipyard list I posted above is enough to prove you wrong.

Actually, your list just proves my point. If those are all the shipyards the Federation has, they will be without shipyards within a few days if the Empire employs the Death Star and/or a few Eclipse-class SSDs to the task. 14 ship yards are not that much.



Again, you present no counter to this simple strategy, which works even if we accept your utterly retarded numbers:
Build a Death Star or other superlaser-equipped large ships. Jump into a system, fire the superlaser at your target, jump out. The target goes boom regardless of it's shields (unless you want to claim that ST-shields can withstand planet-shattering firepower, which you probably will) and regardless of the amounts of defenders around (unless you pack millions of ships into the system - space is just that big).
Even if we assume that the Death Star needs 24 hours to recharge (which was clearly not the case with the second Death Star), the Empire can destroy every single Federation shipyard within two weeks. They can also annihilate every planet they want or any other target. If we go by your numbers and scale upwards, the First Death Star would already be an excellent match for any Federation attack (it doesn't have to fight anyway) - since it has ~10 million times the volume of an ISD. The Death Star 2 has about 170 times the volume of that.

Face it, retard - the Federation is utterly outclassed even IF we accept your wanked numbers. They will be crushed within a few months at most, if they don't surrender before that point.
If we take the actual numbers instead of some fantasies from your empty mind, then it's even worse.

[Picard]

Aah, back to our wall of ignorance, aren't we?
Take a Death Star, jump into the solar system, blow up Earth or target whatever space station you want to. You have done nothing to address that point, to which the Federation has absolutely no counter.

Back to superweapons? Yes, that could work... supposing DS can exit close enough to planet. In contrary, chances are that it will get blown up.

So instead of taking my explanation which is consistent with what we see, you are making one up that we never see or hear anything about.

In DS9 episode "Statistical Probabilities we hear that war will cause approximately 900 billion Federation casualties before Federation surrenders. Never hear anything about? Riiight.

Actually, your list just proves my point. If those are all the shipyards the Federation has, they will be without shipyards within a few days if the Empire employs the Death Star and/or a few Eclipse-class SSDs to the task. 14 ship yards are not that much.

These are shipyards we know of. Plus, farmboy blew up DSI. And even if we accept EU fantasies, Eclipse was not finished until after RotJ. And as far as I know, Executor is given title of strongest ship in galaxy in G-canon.

If we take the actual numbers instead of some fantasies from your empty mind, then it's even worse.

You mean, you discard canon for sake of some EU fantasies?

Federation outclassed? Yes, by Imperial Zerg rush. Utterly? No.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Picard, your list of 14 shipyards contains 10 that are within the solar system, another 2 (Proxima Centauri and 40 Eridani) that are within 16 light years. That kinda fucks up your argument retard

fine, they arent ALL in the Solar System, but from YOUR list, MOST of them are.

[Serafina]

Back to superweapons? Yes, that could work... supposing DS can exit close enough to planet. In contrary, chances are that it will get blown up.

Yes, "back to superweapons" indeed.
The Empire has them, they can reproduce them, they even put them on their (more-or-less) regular ships. They are an integral part of their doctrine.

The important difference to Federation-superweapons is that:
-Federation superweapons are one-shot devices. Even if they could be reproduced (never shown), you can only use each genesis device/supernova-torpedo ONCE. Compared to that, the Death Star can be used as often as the Empire wants for all practical purposes.
-Federation superweapons are delivered by their normal starships. While that can be an advantage, it also has the disadvantage that you can stop them easier. This is not the case with the Death Stars, which are just too big to fight.
-The Federation can not employ their weapons in imperial space, simply because their warp drive is too slow. Compared to that, the Death Star can jump around Federation at will.

So, wanker - how is the Federation going to stop the Death Star? How are they going to destroy a spherical ship with a diameter of 900 km within the few minutes it needs to position itself? How are they even going to get trough these shields? Even if we use your out-wanked numbers, simple scaling makes the Death Star more than strong enough to survive any onslaught by the Federation.
Besides, even if you manage to blow up a Death Star, what stops the Empire from building another one?

In DS9 episode "Statistical Probabilities we hear that war will cause approximately 900 billion Federation casualties before Federation surrenders. Never hear anything about? Riiight.

I didn't dispute your population numbers. Try again.

These are shipyards we know of. Plus, farmboy blew up DSI. And even if we accept EU fantasies, Eclipse was not finished until after RotJ. And as far as I know, Executor is given title of strongest ship in galaxy in G-canon.

"Plus, Farmboy blew up DS I".
First of all, i already stated that the second Death Star lacked that critical weakness. I also pointed out that the Rebels got the plans for the Death Star, something which the Federation won't have - therefore, they wouldn't even know the weak spot of the First Death Star.
Second, Luke was no mere farmboy but aided by the Force and Obi-Wan. He also had flight experiences with such situations, often flying a Repulsorlift-vehicle back on Tatooine. Therefore, "experienced pilot aided by the supernatural blew up DS I after learning of it's weakness" - the Federation has none of those.
Third, you can't just throw out the EU, since it is fully canon. If i would follow your approach, i could ignore everything we see in DS 9 and just limit the discussion to early TNG. It doesn't work like that - the Empire had the capability to build the Eclipse during it's height, they merely choose not to do so (focussing on the Death Star instead). But the Eclipse was only a minor point anyway, the Death Star suffices.

You mean, you discard canon for sake of some EU fantasies?

The EU is canon. Deal with it.

Federation outclassed? Yes, by Imperial Zerg rush. Utterly? No.

How is a Death Star a Zerg rush?
But indeed, a "Zerg rush" would work even if we accept your numbers - you are just that utterly outclassed. The Empire could throw tens of thousands of Star Destroyers at the Federation - and due to their superior speed, they can pick their battles. That means that they can hit where you are weak - ten thousand ships against a single planet, guarded by only a few Federation starships. Burn the planet to cinders and retreat. Repeat until everyone in Starfleet starves to death.



You have only presented the claim that "the Federation will destroy the Death Star" - without even a shred of evidence. You ignore that the Death Star is BILLIONS of times larger than any vessel ever built by the Federation, and that that simply means that even if we use your numbers, it outclasses whole Federation fleets. You also ignore that it can just retreat whenever it wants, and that it takes mere seconds to blow up it's target after it drops out of hyperspace.
You have nothing that can stop these hit&run attacks. You can't pursue the Death Star or retaliate against the Empire, because you are too slow. You can't destroy it within a few minutes, which is all the time you will get. Therefore, you can protect NONE of your assets against the Empire - your strategic assets will be destroyed one by one. Your starships will starve to death eventually, if they don't surrender.

Again -THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO.


P.S: Can you believe that that moron actually believes the Federation can destroy a Death Star?

[Junghalli]

Have we ever seen a Federation planet that wasn't a major planet (like earth) that had any military significance whatsoever?

What exactly do you expect to see? Most of the episodes featured our hero ship doing exploration or diplomacy or being involved in international incidents well away from the Federation's centers of power.

That would actually make sense in Star Trek as well - we saw that the other major players (Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians) were essentially single-planet empires with a couple of outposts and resource-colonies. They certainly don't have dozens of worlds with populations in the billions.

How do we know? I don't recall the demographics of those empires ever being discussed in any detail. They could easily have many large colonies or conquered territories (the Klingons and Romulan polities are called empires after all); just because all we see is the homeworlds doesn't mean nothing else is there.

Edit: heck, massive portions of DS9 were devoted to precisely such a former territory of the Cardassians: Bajor.

[SeaTrooper]

Alright, couple of points here (just to keep the debate going).

Primus, how soon after the creation of the Fed was this episode? If they'd only met the First Federation in series 1, then I suspect it might still be quite young. In which case, Kirk may not have yet gained the ingrained cultural reflex of considering all of the Fed when saying 'we'. Of course, extrapolate that and we get a thousand worlds with HUMAN occupation. Quite literally, 'we -Humans- are on a thousand worlds'! That, naturally, makes the number even more impressive.

Secondus, on thinking about it further, my original argument is flawed. We saw little to no evidence throughout TOS that the Feds treated non-members world's as belonging to them simply by the accident of fate that put those worlds within claimed Fed territory. Indeed, this is something that especially disgusted me when I first really paid attention to the idea in ST:I. Oh, the Fed of Kirk's time were expansionistic and ever ready to rumble with those empire's raiding from outside their own, but that kind of arrogant lawyering seemed blessedly absent.

Oh, and there's a tertius. Kirk was always a passionate, enthusiastic speaker and 'One Thousand' is a good, wholesome number. One of those meat and potatoes-figures that rolls off the tongue so well. As such, he may have been rounding up or down to hit 1,000. Trying to convince Cochrane to come away to 'one thousand, two hundred and fifty-six worlds' just doesn't roll so trippingly off the tongue. Especially when trying to convince someone against their own perceived best interests to do what you want.

[fallendragon]

Aah, back to our wall of ignorance, aren't we?
Take a Death Star, jump into the solar system, blow up Earth or target whatever space station you want to. You have done nothing to address that point, to which the Federation has absolutely no counter.

Back to superweapons? Yes, that could work... supposing DS can exit close enough to planet. In contrary, chances are that it will get blown up.

So instead of taking my explanation which is consistent with what we see, you are making one up that we never see or hear anything about.

In DS9 episode "Statistical Probabilities we hear that war will cause approximately 900 billion Federation casualties before Federation surrenders. Never hear anything about? Riiight.

Actually, your list just proves my point. If those are all the shipyards the Federation has, they will be without shipyards within a few days if the Empire employs the Death Star and/or a few Eclipse-class SSDs to the task. 14 ship yards are not that much.

These are shipyards we know of. Plus, farmboy blew up DSI. And even if we accept EU fantasies, Eclipse was not finished until after RotJ. And as far as I know, Executor is given title of strongest ship in galaxy in G-canon.

If we take the actual numbers instead of some fantasies from your empty mind, then it's even worse.

You mean, you discard canon for sake of some EU fantasies?

Federation outclassed? Yes, by Imperial Zerg rush. Utterly? No.

ok first, why would any rational person not use the superweapons it has access to? if we only see 14 stardocks why should we assume that there are more? ummm EU is cannon you have enough sense to know this right? next would you mind providing proof of the Startrek firepower and energy production claims?

[SeaTrooper]

Serafina. You don't need my help hammering trektards, but I had to laugh at the dockyards Picard posted. In trying to claim that 'Earth' didn't have all of the Fed's construction facilities, where does he state the bulk of them are? Take out Earth and you can say bye-bye to the Lunar facilities as well. Oh, and while you're in the system, go visit Mars!

[Junghalli]

ok first, why would any rational person not use the superweapons it has access to?

One possible reason: because the other side has superweapons too and would probably respond in kind and nobody really wants to go there.

Same reason no nuclear weapon has been exploded in anger since WWII in real life.

if we only see 14 stardocks why should we assume that there are more?

We shouldn't necessarily, but by the same token why should we assume there aren't? It's a lower limit, nothing more.