Have Trekkies used these arguments?

[NecronLord]

Star Trek is actually just as good at planetary bombardment. In some respects it is better. If Vader had possessed a klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant class in his fleet, he could have taken the battle of Hoth without ever needing to set foot on the planet, though he might have killed Luke. Bypassing the shield. Would you like me to explain?

Wait what? Using that logic Vaider could have sent tie bombers the he didn't and why it wouldn't work with birds of pray ( besides not killing luke ) is because the Hoth shield is probably like the Gungan one and requires physical contact with the ground. Wich is one of the reasons that they used walkers.

I thought you'd need it explained. See, Star Trek does have a plethora of planet destroying chemical weapons which fuck a planet's biosphere in *seconds*. Not weeks, days or hours, but seconds.

For instance the Trilithum Resin used by Sisko here.


Or the klingon destruction of all life on Indri VII via a plasma reaction.

The hoth shield didn't protect against wind - evidently as we see wind still through it - and we've no grounds to think it would protect against a chemical attack on such a scale.

Ok conceded. I guess that's what you get for messing with the Sisko am I right .

Or just the federation and star trek humans generally. People assume it'd have no stomach for conflict.



They're basically just wrong about that.

[darthy2]

So there there are two idiotic Trekkie arguments that I suspect some dye hard Trekkies think but I haven't really seen argued on this forum or others. They more or less sound like this.

• Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.

• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.

What I'm asking is has anyone hear has herd of people use these arguments on any forums and if so could anyone point me to them were the person or persons arguing them gets the imperial smack down so you know to get a good chuckle out of there stupidity.

Star Trek can just send holographic armies now (Voyager episode "Flesh and Blood") and hear about the war as a sidenote from the federation news service after Star Trek wins.

[Borgholio]

So there there are two idiotic Trekkie arguments that I suspect some dye hard Trekkies think but I haven't really seen argued on this forum or others. They more or less sound like this.

• Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.

• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.

What I'm asking is has anyone hear has herd of people use these arguments on any forums and if so could anyone point me to them were the person or persons arguing them gets the imperial smack down so you know to get a good chuckle out of there stupidity.

Star Trek can just send holographic armies now (Voyager episode "Flesh and Blood") and hear about the war as a sidenote from the federation news service after Star Trek wins.

That's not even close to what the episode is about. There is never any mention of holographic armies and none are ever seen anywhere in Trek. Did you even watch that episode?

[Esquire]

Plus, the idea that the holograms would be somehow invincible violates conservation of energy. If it can interact with you, you can interact with it - and by 'interact' I really mean 'shoot.'

[NecronLord]

In absolute fairness, if you could weaponise whatever the Think Tank used to project one from light years away into Janeway's ready room and drink her coffee, that would be an amazing weapon that could well take over many ground combat missions.

If you turn 'project hologram of yourself' and 'drink coffee' into 'project xenomorph into enemy barracks' and 'eat brain.'

BUt given that various things disrupt holograms I'd not want to count on such a technology.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

To be fair though, if Voyager is any indication, Trek holograms can turn intangible when they want to. Ultimately however, holograms are only as good as the emitters that project them. Once when Tuvok shot a guy who tried to take the Doctor hostage, he fired straight through him. Though his matrix did take some damage so he wasn't entirely unharmed. In any case, take out the emitters and your holograms are history.

What the guy from the Think Tank had was something called an Isomorphic Projection, by comparison a hologram was said to be crude. That whole drinking coffee thing was stupid on so many levels. Had the consumed coffee been left behind when the projection was turned off it might have made sense- this is the same episode where a sentient AI asked Seven what she knew about adding organic components, so it can be taken with a pinch of salt!

[DarthPooky]

Ok I'm sorry for the long response time.

I thought you'd need it explained. See, Star Trek does have a plethora of planet destroying chemical weapons which fuck a planet's biosphere in *seconds*. Not weeks, days or hours, but seconds.

For instance the Trilithum Resin used by Sisko here.


Or the klingon destruction of all life on Indri VII via a plasma reaction.

The hoth shield didn't protect against wind - evidently as we see wind still through it - and we've no grounds to think it would protect against a chemical attack on such a scale.

Oh I thought you meant for some reason flying in and strafing the base like the Klingons did in that DS9 episode the last one with Kor

Or just the federation and star trek humans generally. People assume it'd have no stomach for conflict.



They're basically just wrong about that.

I already conceited to that point.

[DarthPooky]

So more on topic. So I was reminded of this thread when I saw the comments on the video that was linked to on the Veron T Disruptor thread. Hear you can take a look https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EvI_FYarYIY

So Why do you think some Trekkies think that because phasers can disintegrate that they must be super duper powerful and there for can take out things like armoured vehicles and hole buildings and air craft effortlessly. Of corse the people making those claims are ones like that idazmy guy and some one else that has the same line of thinking.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Idumbass7 claims a hand phaser has a 300GT yield, if memory serves. Like the rest, he quite ignores everything which stops lethal-power phaser beams, including packing crates, and bases his assessment on the infamous line uttered by a mentally-questionable Riker in TNG's "Frame Of Mind,"* even though we've never seen Level 16 in any situation where it could've done any good(e.g. AR-558).

*released in first run simoultaneous to Patrick Stewart and Colm Meaney appearing in the play Every Good Boy Deserves Favor, the production of which was touring the country at the time

[Batman]

Um-if memory serves (and Memory Alpha seems to agree), Riker says the shot would destroy 'half the building' (which given the TNG TM power settings seems actually quite plausible). How, exactly, does that translate into 3TT?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Um-if memory serves (and Memory Alpha seems to agree), Riker says the shot would destroy 'half the building' (which given the TNG TM power settings seems actually quite plausible). How, exactly, does that translate into 3TT?

300 gigatons was the alleged claim. And, you'd have to ask idummy7; I blocked his silly ass on Boob Tube ages ago. Personally, I can't see it.

[Batman]

Yeah, I seem to have seen an additional zero there. Not that that changes much.

[DarthPooky]

Um-if memory serves (and Memory Alpha seems to agree), Riker says the shot would destroy 'half the building' (which given the TNG TM power settings seems actually quite plausible). How, exactly, does that translate into 3TT?

Sure but the TM is not canon and we've seen Phasers fire on level 16 and they in no way produce the effects that the TM says. So ya I don't think a Phaser can take out a hole or half a building.

[Q99]

Something that hasn't really been shown, but *should* be pretty major, is shuttles and Runabouts in atmosphere.

They can take light starship fire, they can hover right above the ground, they have phasers and in the case of Runabouts even small photon torpedoes.

And they also have cargo capacity if you need to deploy people or stuff- transporters too, if they aren't being jammed.

One shuttlecraft really makes most small arms obsolete.


Though of course, there's also the ultimate fortress- Land an Intrepid class. Put one of those down near your objective, and that objective is yours.

Dunno if they actually do this, but this isn't even an extrapolation unlike some suggestions, these craft work in atmosphere just fine.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, I think with Runabouts/shuttles, the Federation is pretty well-covered for air support in ground combat.

[Q99]

Pretty much anything with a warp core however small- or even impulse engines- is going to be beyond the power curve of something without 'em.

[Batman]

Good for the Feds that nobody seems to remember what ground batteries are.

[The Romulan Republic]

Good for the Feds that nobody seems to remember what ground batteries are.

A moot point unless those batteries have sufficient power to punch through shields that can withstand at least minimal fire from starship weapons.

If they did have ground batteries that powerful, I suspect they'd be priority targets for an orbital strike.

[Batman]

And why wouldn't those batteries have that firepower or the shielding required to withstand orbital strikes?

[The Romulan Republic]

And why wouldn't those batteries have that firepower or the shielding required to withstand orbital strikes?

Because planetary shielding that can stand up to star ship weapons is rare bordering on non-existent in Star Trek.

Of course, so are ground batteries.

I suppose you could build a ground-based phaser array or something that could shoot down a starship. But that's a nice big stationary target.

[Batman]

So's a starship hanging in orbit above it. And who said anything about shielding the entire freaking planet? Just put a shield on the battery itself. You can do it for a starship, you can for it for a ground battery (which generally has a lot more room to spare thanks to not needing artificial gravity. life support, drive systems and so on).

[The Romulan Republic]

So's a starship hanging in orbit above it. And who said anything about shielding the entire freaking planet? Just put a shield on the battery itself. You can do it for a starship, you can for it for a ground battery (which generally has a lot more room to spare thanks to not needing artificial gravity. life support, drive systems and so on).

To clarify: ground-based shields that can resist a star ship are exceedingly rare. Don't ask me why.

As to the starship being a target, yeah, but at least a mobile one. There's this thing called "evasive maneuvers".

[Batman]

And we both know what Trek evasive maneuvres look like TNG+ (of course so does their targeting so...)

[The Romulan Republic]

I think we need to figure out weather we're debating what would work in canon Trek, or what would work in a Trek universe where they had more competent armed forces.

[Batman]

Oh the ground batteries bit and how effective they should be given the available technology was definitely a 'sensible' Trek comment.