StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[EDIT: Crap. I used two "twisteds."]

Master of Ossus wrote: The thing is, it's not really possible to make a shockwave act like that while in an atmosphere. If you increased the firepower, it won't particularly make a difference.

Moreover, I hardly think that I'm trying to keep the 60 MT figure viable, as I've already shown significant evidence that weapons fire in ST is in the KT range!

Oh, I think the 60 megatons thing is about right for an order of magnitude estimate...

If you're talking about a ship's entire torpedo payload

LOL. Even then, I'm not so sure. A few of the more speculatory examples probably call for hundred kiloton-class torpedoes, but a lot of the actual visual evidence points to around a dozen or so IIRC. "Genesis" is a good example.

Besides, I like to say "dozen."

Tsar Bomba was, IIRC, 54 megatons. Certainly not 90.

Not you again.

Vexx wrote:Here are a few things I picked up cruing the information superwhatever about photon torpedoes observed yield.

The TM states about 60-120 megaton yield. This is generally accepted among most of the people around. However, consider:

During the Cold War the Soviets built and detonated a 90 megaton nuke. It seems unlikely that, even given Starfleet's apparent disreguard to efficient advancement, they wouldn't be much better off 400 years later.

Wrong, it was 50-60 megatons. The Tsar Bomb was massive. A photon torpedo is tiny, and has to move. Furthermore, NX-01 torpedoes in the future are canonly not close to nuclear warheads.

If that estimation of a mere 60-some odd megatons is correct, it would mean that the modern-day Arleigh Burke-class Cruise Missile Destroyer is capable of destroying a GCS, because it is armed with many multiple-megaton warheads fixed to the ends of cruise missiles and we've seen these torpedoes destroy ships.

Liar. For one thing, it's Guided Missle Destroyer. A Burke carries a maximum of 96 Tomahawks with 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. When you acount for at least half of the lost energy in a spherical explosion, that's only 9.6 megatons.

Again, it would be unlikely that Starfleet is SO inept that they would have their flagships run around the galaxy being no stronger than a modern-day Destroyer 400 years after the fact.

Thirdly, it has been observed and/or stated in the canon that even a Constitution-class' armament is capable of rending the surface of a planet void of life, ("A Taste of Armageddon" [TOS], "Bread and Circuses" [TOS], "Whom Gods Destroy" [TOS],

Time frames were not specified, and several were threats, which aren't usually accurate.

"The Die Is Cast" [DS9])

Dealt with so many times.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

Vexx wrote:Here are a few things I picked up cruing the information superwhatever about photon torpedoes observed yield.

The TM states about 60-120 megaton yield. This is generally accepted among most of the people around. However, consider:

During the Cold War the Soviets built and detonated a 90 megaton nuke. It seems unlikely that, even given Starfleet's apparent disreguard to efficient advancement, they wouldn't be much better off 400 years later.

Wrong, it was 50-60 megatons. The Tsar Bomb was massive. A photon torpedo is tiny, and has to move. Furthermore, NX-01 torpedoes in the future are canonly not close to nuclear warheads.

Why is it that Trekkies insist that standard Fed ship weapons must be more powerful than the most powerful nuke ever detonated in history, even though our current standard ship based weapons (four decades after the Tsar bomba) aren't anywhere near that powerful?

Incidentally, I'm vexed as to where you got the claim that M/AM weapons are not radioactive. When detonated, they would release radiation (actually, quite a lot of it when detonated in a vacuum).

Master of Ossus wrote:Incidentally, I'm vexed as to where you got the claim that M/AM weapons are not radioactive. When detonated, they would release radiation (actually, quite a lot of it when detonated in a vacuum).

I've heard that one pretty often, too.

VGR actually got this one right in "Friendship One." (?!?! VGR...right?!) IIRC, a civilization had built a big M/AM reactor; it went kablooey, and the resulting radiation almost wiped them out.

For Vexx:

This is the reason that the shockwaves as seen in TDiC cannot be explained by yield alone. An explosion shockwave going off in an atmosphere will expand very quickly, and just as quickly slow down as the wave compresses air away from the epicenter... pretty soon, the pressure of the air at the wave front will equal the pressure of the shockwave itself, causing the expansion of the shockwave to slow. There will still be a shockwave, technically, but it will be merely a "ripple" of air molecules (similar to a breeze). The Tsar Bomb you referenced actually had a shockwave that circled the planet twice before fully dissipating.

For large explosions, there's a phenomenon known as "blowout". This is caused by the fact that a shockwave is three-dimensional... energy will be sent UPWARDS, away from the planet, as well. When it leaves the atmosphere, this causes a large amount of energy to be channeled into space... wasting the energy, essentially.

In terms of shockwave "size" (referring to a noticeably violent shockwave front), in order to increase the area devastated, you need to exponentially increase the yield of the weapon. That is, a 10 megaton bomb might devastate an area ten miles wide, a 20 megaton bomb might devastate an area 13 miles wide, a 40 megaton bomb might devastate an area only 14.5 miles wide... etc. etc.

ULTIMATELY... if the "explosions" as seen in TDiC were caused by immense yields, what we SHOULD have seen would've been comparatively tiny areas, awash in a massively bright flash (if those were gigaton omni-directional blasts, they should have been blinding even from orbit), a comparatively small area of land affected by a shockwave that expanded, then quickly slowed, followed by an unnoticeable "wind" around the rest of the planet at a comparatively slow velocity.

However, what we DID see was almost NO flash, NO residual lighting (the "fireball" should have remained for at least a minute... several minutes, most likely), NO slowing of the supposed shockwaves, NO atmosphere blowout...

Just like the "turbolasers don't behave like lasers" argument, the weapons in TDiC didn't behave like massive explosions. They were certainly not conventional Trek weapons.

seanrobertson wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Incidentally, I'm vexed as to where you got the claim that M/AM weapons are not radioactive. When detonated, they would release radiation (actually, quite a lot of it when detonated in a vacuum).

I've heard that one pretty often, too.

VGR actually got this one right in "Friendship One." (?!?! VGR...right?!) IIRC, a civilization had built a big M/AM reactor; it went kablooey, and the resulting radiation almost wiped them out.

Lol.

Anyway, no offense to anyone, but this has just become a bunch of die-hard Warsies sweeping down into the trek-only forum to keep the Empire safe in vs debates by trying to bash down any evidence that they're wrong. You want to talk about the varying sizes of torpedo explosions and effects, fine. You drag Star Wars into it and start flinging "Trekkie" around, then I want no part of it. Call it a concession all you want, I'm just not going to be drawn into a Warsie anti-trek campaign. Just a couple of things and then I'm done:

Why is it that Trekkies insist that standard Fed ship weapons must be more powerful than the most powerful nuke ever detonated in history, even though our current standard ship based weapons (four decades after the Tsar bomba) aren't anywhere near that powerful?

I said several times there were low-kiloton and even less than 1 kiloton torpedo explosions, not that every torpedo is more massive than anything ever concieved.

Wrong, it was 50-60 megatons. The Tsar Bomb was massive. A photon torpedo is tiny, and has to move. Furthermore, NX-01 torpedoes in the future are canonly not close to nuclear warheads.

Apparently, we're both wrong:

"The largest nuclear weapon ever produced was the Soviet thermonuclear Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs"), which had an estimated yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. A scaled-down 50Mt version of Tsar Bomba was tested in September 1961, in the largest man-made explosion to date." -www.bullatomsci.org

The 100 megaton bomb was designed and built, but never fired. Instead, the Soviet union decided to develop 50 megaton versions. It's not surprising. The 100 megaton bomb would have been useless militarily.

Time frames were not specified, and several were threats, which aren't usually accurate.

One time frame was, IIRC, 45 minutes. TDiC had a timeframe (despite all the attempts to claim that the figure in TDiC were "lies", and not only that, pretty meaningless lies, I will continue to believe that a fleet that size is capable of that level of destruction in said time limits.)

Anyway, since people decided to bring up the whole vs thing I'd just like to say one thing. Warsies worship the calculations of the Hoth asteroids to determin HTL power despite the evidence that points to the contrary throughout the films. Yet, planetary-wide destruction is mentioned many times as quite capable by ST ships from TOS to Voyager and they're all written off as "lies", "bluffs", etc, SOME excuse as to why it's not possible. Even "The visual effects of those explosions do not support those yield figures", even though I never saw a HTL make a 300 gigaton explosion. I really don't see any point in trying to argue the fact since it's pretty much a given that most peoples' perceptions are severely one-sided. It's like walking into a church and trying to convince everyone that God doesn't exist. So take it as my concession if you want. I just wanted to give it a try.

The Tsar bomb was meant to have a yield of 90-100MT. However, it only managed 54-60, IIRC.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

TurboPhaser wrote:

No, it doesn't. If you read the site, you would see canon evidence, specifically, Q Who, were Worf stated that firing a photon torpedo at close range at the Borg vessel would likely destroy the Enterprise. If the warhead was a shaped charge (I believe that's what you were referring to), there would be no such risk. We also have explosions slamming out from all directions in First Contact (against the Cube).

Does that in fact prove large warheads for PhoTorps? That a proximity detonation can destroy the Enterprise?

Do you know how much energy the hull, of the Enterprise can take?

Not precisley. But we have a few clues.

400GW blast in 'The Survivors' does thermal damage to the hull. Not too shabby.

Klingon blaster and torpedo shots do very little damage to the hull in 'Generations' Hull was only slightly damaged in many impacts. Unfortunatley, chain reaction damage destroys the ship. (Damn them!, I loved the E-D!)

GC starship Oddessy took surpringsly limited damage from Jem'Hadar ship impact. Explosion and destroyed sections of ship about the same size as Jem' Hadar 'Bug'. Again, chain reaction destroyed ship. Bloody hell, i'm glad they upgraded the GC.

There you have it, is that enough clues?

It depends What I consider "large" might be different than your own idea of the same which, I would guess is at least into the high MT-range, correct?

Correct.

As I recall, the Borg cube was between 5-10 kilometers "behind" the Enterprise-D. This is a pretty good estimate, but someone could refine it somewhat I guess *shrugs*. (In the end, for a no. of reasons it doesn't make that much of a difference.)

Anyway, I don't gotta tell you, that means that when the E-D shoots at the cube, those explosions would be 5-10 km away.

Sounds reasonable. I'd agree with 5-10 km.

We also know that a quarter kiloton Romulan mine blew a nice chunk out of the NX-01 in "Minefield." If 40% of that mine's ordinance struck the ship, that'd be 418 gigajoules. The E-D is far larger than the NX and presumably more durable, even if it does require all sorts of SIFs to sustain itself in warp flight, sublight maneuvers, and so on.

I would say that a GCS would be far, far more durable than that tissue papered vessel.

While, subjectively, I seriously doubt that amount of energy would likely blow up the E-D, we have to step back for a minute and remember that Data didn't specify how the photorps would destroy the ship. Those two giant warp nacelles, which we know are horrifically vulnerable ("Cause and Effect"), would have to be factored into the equation.

Yes, they were vulnerable. Upgraded a bit in Generations I think, the nacelle was directly hit by disruptor fire and survived longer than 'Cause and Effect'

And everything else you said:

1 MT seems a tad low, though reasonable if you wanna go for the 'straw and camel' thing.

In these situations, I tend to take the dialouge literally, since thats the only direct thing we have to draw from here. So when he says 'destroyed' I would tend to think 'destroyed' as well. For the E-D to be utterly destroyed by a proximity detonation at 5-10 km, I'm still thinking big warhead.

Anyway, no offense to anyone, but this has just become a bunch of die-hard Warsies sweeping down into the trek-only forum to keep the Empire safe in vs debates by trying to bash down any evidence that they're wrong.

Bucko, this is a webpage devoted to the argument of Star Wars vs. Star Trek. The comparison between the two is inevitable. Furthermore, I really haven't seen many people dragging Star Wars into this. Most comparisons have involved modern naval or weapon systems.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

TDiC had a timeframe (despite all the attempts to claim that the figure in TDiC were "lies", and not only that, pretty meaningless lies, I will continue to believe that a fleet that size is capable of that level of destruction in said time limits.)

Actually, the biggest argument against TDiC is lack of CONTEXT. They gave an amount of time it would take to "destroy" the crust and, afterwards, the mantle. For the crust, the timeframe was one hour. For the mantle, it was five.

But what does "destroy" entail? Vaporize? Damage to the point where no living creature could survive? Damage to the poin where no living creature of significant bio-mass could survive?

Frankly, I'd go with the latter. They were trying to kill the Founders, not every single microbe. The evidence? The time frame. The mantle of a planet would be FAR more than five times as voluminous as the crust. Thus, they're not seeking total vaporization, or even homogenous destruction... just enough to make sure that the Founders wouldn't live.

Vexx wrote: Lol.

Anyway, no offense to anyone, but this has just become a bunch of die-hard Warsies sweeping down into the trek-only forum to keep the Empire safe in vs debates by trying to bash down any evidence that they're wrong.

I'm a Trekkie and a "Warsie." And a B5 fan, too, though I'd object to the term "Fiver," which I traditionally associate with people who, in their own words, "support" B5 technical issues in a manner w/ which I'm not comfortable doing myself.

The Galactic Empire is so far beyond 99.9999_% of Trek that I actually feel a bit sorry for the UFP...if only a little. I'm only too quick to argue with someone who feels that the Star Trek V torpedo is indicative of their greatest firepower. I want Starfleet to get a fair shake when it comes to assessing their weapons (as do the vast majority of the other "rabid Warsies" here, you'll find).

However, it all comes down to what I perceive as the truth. I see big turbolasers as hundreds of gigatons/shot weapons and more. I see photon torpedoes as, at best, 1-2 megatons--and even that I have trouble with because it's not readily supported by the preponderance of evidence.

If acknowledging that renders me an exclusive Warsie, so be it

I said several times there were low-kiloton and even less than 1 kiloton torpedo explosions, not that every torpedo is more massive than anything ever concieved.

You might have, indeed (I don't have the time right now to verify this, which I usually do no matter who I'm talking to. I'll take your word for it).

However, you were also asserting something along these lines:

Tsar Bomba is a 50 megaton device, built by Cold War-era Soviets.
The Federation is far more advanced than the CW Soviets.

Therefore, the Federation routinely fields ship-to-ship warheads that could exceed that yield.

That's a non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow that Starfleet ships must have multi-megaton torpedoes because they're more advanced.

I agree, next to the USSR, Starfleet's technology is a Humvee next to a bike, maybe a bike with training wheels.

But we're talking about a GIANT nuclear weapon built for a single test--a weapon that's certainly not capable of being launched from a spaceship, let alone able to track a target travelling at hundreds of gees or do the other things that photorps do.

Photorps can't simply be scaled up for the occassion; the launchers can't allow a 2m-wide torpedo to go through a .7m-wide tube.

And the warhead can only be so big given limits in magnetic containment technology, not to forget the very important fact that the torpedo IS more than just a warhead: it contains guidance systems, gear to sustain a warp field when fired therefrom, mass-lightening equipment, some kind of tiny shield generator ("Half a Life"), and a propulsion unit.

As such, you can't just indiscriminately cram a bunch of antimatter in there for a bigger bang.

These limitations make it impossible for even the more advanced photon torpedoes to equal the yield of a huge but "crude" nuclear weapon. More advanced doesn't mean "more powerful," even if that advancement is staggering.

Apparently, we're both wrong:

"The largest nuclear weapon ever produced was the Soviet thermonuclear Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs"), which had an estimated yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. A scaled-down 50Mt version of Tsar Bomba was tested in September 1961, in the largest man-made explosion to date." -www.bullatomsci.org

Tsar Bomba was planned as a 100 megaton device. The actual test itself was "only" 50 MT.

The 100 megaton bomb was designed and built, but never fired. Instead, the Soviet union decided to develop 50 megaton versions. It's not surprising. The 100 megaton bomb would have been useless militarily.

See above.

Also, you might look for a stronger analogy in Treknology. A bomb of that size is about the ultimate WOMAD by today's standards. Photon torpedoes are capable of planetary bombardment, but their primary role is anti-ship.

A better analogy would be the Cardassian Interceptor "Dreadnought," an automated missile with a low gigaton-range warhead. Among 24th century technologies, IT is considered a WOMAD.

One time frame was, IIRC, 45 minutes. TDiC had a timeframe (despite all the attempts to claim that the figure in TDiC were "lies", and not only that, pretty meaningless lies, I will continue to believe that a fleet that size is capable of that level of destruction in said time limits.)

I and numerous others have already addressed the reasons why "The Die Is Cast" is worthless insofar as determining photorp yields.

As far as the timeframes go, I covered this as well: "Computer analysis indicates that the planet's crust will be destroyed within one hour; and the mantle, within five."

Anyway, since people decided to bring up the whole vs thing I'd just like to say one thing. Warsies worship the calculations of the Hoth asteroids to determin HTL power despite the evidence that points to the contrary throughout the films.

Huh?

Those turbolasers weren't the heavy guns--and that's the understatement of the century. Their lower-limit output was somewhere around 3,000 to 4k terajoules (a megaton is 4,180 TJ).

But what evidence to the contrary were you thinking of?

Yet, planetary-wide destruction is mentioned many times as quite capable by ST ships from TOS to Voyager and they're all written off as "lies", "bluffs", etc, SOME excuse as to why it's not possible.

Yes and no.

Sometimes these things might be somewhat exaggerated. It depends on the individual circumstances.

Now, I agree that a starship could inflict planet-wide destruction given a little time..."The Die Is Cast" DOES demonstrate that.

Regarding bombardments, however, what you seem to be missing is:

A--Their weapons needn't be insanely powerful to "bomb a civilization back to the stone age" (kiloton-ranged torpedoes WOULD suffice);

B--This is accomplished by torpedo AND phaser weapons. Phasers are NOT direct-energy transfer weapons.

Therefore, to conclude that planet-wide destruction is solely attributable to "raw firepower" is incorrect. In light of the meticulous analyses of phaser effects available today, anyone who says phasers are direct energy transfer weapons is delusional, blind or both.

Even "The visual effects of those explosions do not support those yield figures", even though I never saw a HTL make a 300 gigaton explosion.

In space?

You wouldn't. You're context-dropping again. Effects in an atmosphere are totally different than what you'll see in space.

This isn't to forget the fact that you've never actually seen a heavy turbolaser fire. (Some have IDed HTL fire in "ROTJ" but I won't complicate matters by discussing that.)

As such, what information do you have that contradicts the 200 gigaton-plus HTL yield? You must see the thing's effects to conclude they're indicative of any yield, "low" or "high".

Anyway, I digress.

Let's get back to "The visual effects of those explosions do not support those yield figures":

That's right.

When we see an atmospheric disturbance in "TDIC" or "Skin of Evil," but we do NOT see a giant fireball, the effects do not support a megaton-plus explosion.

It can't get any simpler than that. A megaton-class explosion will glow VERY brightly for over a minute. For whatever reason, those explosions do not. End of story.

In the case of "TDIC," I posit some kind of subspace weapons were used. "SoE" involves a DET weapon, but the effects aren't at all consistent with even a single megaton explosion.

SPOOFE wrote: Actually, the biggest argument against TDiC is lack of CONTEXT. They gave an amount of time it would take to "destroy" the crust and, afterwards, the mantle. For the crust, the timeframe was one hour. For the mantle, it was five.

But what does "destroy" entail? Vaporize? Damage to the point where no living creature could survive? Damage to the poin where no living creature of significant bio-mass could survive?

Frankly, I'd go with the latter. They were trying to kill the Founders, not every single microbe. The evidence? The time frame. The mantle of a planet would be FAR more than five times as voluminous as the crust. Thus, they're not seeking total vaporization, or even homogenous destruction... just enough to make sure that the Founders wouldn't live.

Well said.

I think the timeframe spent on the mantle means that the fleet was only targetting the upper-portion of the mantle, a part that my old geology text claimed was mostly solid and, along with the crust, part of the "lithosphere." The molten asthenosphere, or the lower mantle, was where most of the volume came from.

Vexx wrote:
Apparently, we're both wrong:

"The largest nuclear weapon ever produced was the Soviet thermonuclear Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs"), which had an estimated yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. A scaled-down 50Mt version of Tsar Bomba was tested in September 1961, in the largest man-made explosion to date." -www.bullatomsci.org

The 100 megaton bomb was designed and built, but never fired. Instead, the Soviet union decided to develop 50 megaton versions. It's not surprising. The 100 megaton bomb would have been useless militarily.

50 megatons is useless, which is why there was only one. Low megaton warheads for use against hardened targets were the highest used.


Oh yeah, Concession Accepted.

One time frame was, IIRC, 45 minutes.

45 minutes was the time IIRC until they began the operation!

TDiC had a timeframe (despite all the attempts to claim that the figure in TDiC were "lies", and not only that, pretty meaningless lies, I will continue to believe that a fleet that size is capable of that level of destruction in said time limits.)

Continue to ignore the impossibly fast shockwaves eh?

Anyway, since people decided to bring up the whole vs thing I'd just like to say one thing. Warsies worship the calculations of the Hoth asteroids to determin HTL power despite the evidence that points to the contrary throughout the films.

Of course. The Genosian asteroid field points to even higher yields!

Yet, planetary-wide destruction is mentioned many times as quite capable by ST ships from TOS to Voyager and they're all written off as "lies", "bluffs", etc, SOME excuse as to why it's not possible.

I challenge you to name ALL these examples and explain them in detail (not just episode names) and I will try to deal with each.

Even "The visual effects of those explosions do not support those yield figures", even though I never saw a HTL make a 300 gigaton explosion.

Funny, I've never seen an HTL explosion period.

Vexx wrote:

seanrobertson wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Incidentally, I'm vexed as to where you got the claim that M/AM weapons are not radioactive. When detonated, they would release radiation (actually, quite a lot of it when detonated in a vacuum).

I've heard that one pretty often, too.

VGR actually got this one right in "Friendship One." (?!?! VGR...right?!) IIRC, a civilization had built a big M/AM reactor; it went kablooey, and the resulting radiation almost wiped them out.

Lol.

Anyway, no offense to anyone, but this has just become a bunch of die-hard Warsies sweeping down into the trek-only forum to keep the Empire safe in vs debates by trying to bash down any evidence that they're wrong. You want to talk about the varying sizes of torpedo explosions and effects, fine. You drag Star Wars into it and start flinging "Trekkie" around, then I want no part of it. Call it a concession all you want, I'm just not going to be drawn into a Warsie anti-trek campaign. Just a couple of things and then I'm done:

Oh, I see. Because you can't actually get around the logical, scientific facts presented, you're going to commit an ad hominem attack(Accusing us of being Warsies attacking Trekkies, thereby trying to attack our credibility instead of our agruments. Brav-o. You proved you're slime), whine that you're outnumbered/treated unfairly/not being taken seriously, and run off. I generally stay out of this forum's debates, but this was too much not to point out just how much of a spineless dick you are.

Tsar Bomba yielded around 50 megatons when it was detonated, but was designed as a three-stage weapon that would yield 100 megatons. Prior to the test the third stage was removed and replaced with lead. They was probably done because of concerns over fallout and of the bomber getting vaporized in the resulting blast.

Vexx wrote:

seanrobertson wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Incidentally, I'm vexed as to where you got the claim that M/AM weapons are not radioactive. When detonated, they would release radiation (actually, quite a lot of it when detonated in a vacuum).

I've heard that one pretty often, too.

VGR actually got this one right in "Friendship One." (?!?! VGR...right?!) IIRC, a civilization had built a big M/AM reactor; it went kablooey, and the resulting radiation almost wiped them out.

Lol.

Anyway, no offense to anyone, but this has just become a bunch of die-hard Warsies sweeping down into the trek-only forum to keep the Empire safe in vs debates by trying to bash down any evidence that they're wrong.

First of all, WHAT evidence?

This is a forum designed to discuss Star Trek, but isn't everyone allowed to discuss here?

You want to talk about the varying sizes of torpedo explosions and effects, fine. You drag Star Wars into it and start flinging "Trekkie" around, then I want no part of it. Call it a concession all you want, I'm just not going to be drawn into a Warsie anti-trek campaign.

None of the responses you just quoted mention Star Wars in any way, shape, or form, nor do they include the word "Trekkie." If I didn't know better, I'd swear that you were the one trying to bait the other side.

Moreover, why would this matter? If you have evidence of higher torpedo yields, then show it and we can discuss it.

Just a couple of things and then I'm done:

Why is it that Trekkies insist that standard Fed ship weapons must be more powerful than the most powerful nuke ever detonated in history, even though our current standard ship based weapons (four decades after the Tsar bomba) aren't anywhere near that powerful?

I said several times there were low-kiloton and even less than 1 kiloton torpedo explosions, not that every torpedo is more massive than anything ever concieved.

But you did subscribe to the "technology level" thing whereby the UFP must have weapons better than a modern warship, in which you state that the UFP would show pathetic levels of competence if they could be bested by a modern warship, etc. etc. etc.

You also ignored several examples of when UFP ships actually ARE worse than modern ships on the high seas.

Wrong, it was 50-60 megatons. The Tsar Bomb was massive. A photon torpedo is tiny, and has to move. Furthermore, NX-01 torpedoes in the future are canonly not close to nuclear warheads.

Apparently, we're both wrong:

"The largest nuclear weapon ever produced was the Soviet thermonuclear Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs"), which had an estimated yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. A scaled-down 50Mt version of Tsar Bomba was tested in September 1961, in the largest man-made explosion to date." -www.bullatomsci.org

I think you guys were talking about the one that was actually detonated (the 50MT bomb). Everyone knows that it was a prototype for an even larger device, but one that was never tested.

Time frames were not specified, and several were threats, which aren't usually accurate.

One time frame was, IIRC, 45 minutes. TDiC had a timeframe (despite all the attempts to claim that the figure in TDiC were "lies", and not only that, pretty meaningless lies, I will continue to believe that a fleet that size is capable of that level of destruction in said time limits.)

Why do you continue to believe this? Their reports are contradictory at best (how can it take one hour to destroy the crust and only five hours to destroy the mantle? For that matter, how can you destroy the mantle?), based on erroneous information, and visual evidence shows that what was going on was not possible.

Anyway, since people decided to bring up the whole vs thing I'd just like to say one thing. Warsies worship the calculations of the Hoth asteroids to determin HTL power despite the evidence that points to the contrary throughout the films.

What are you talking about? The Hoth asteroid belt never even showed an HTL firing? For that matter, why are you bringing SW into this debate even though you specifically stated that you didn't want that to happen, and would run away once SW became involved? What evidence points to anything "contrary throughout the films?"

Yet, planetary-wide destruction is mentioned many times as quite capable by ST ships from TOS to Voyager and they're all written off as "lies", "bluffs", etc, SOME excuse as to why it's not possible. Even "The visual effects of those explosions do not support those yield figures", even though I never saw a HTL make a 300 gigaton explosion.

Irrelevant, moron. Do you know what the difference is between a lower limit and an upper one?

I really don't see any point in trying to argue the fact since it's pretty much a given that most peoples' perceptions are severely one-sided.

Show an example of when I've ignored a claim purely because I'm "severely one-sided." For that matter, show evidence of a claim that was resisted purely because it would support ST. Show how my calculations, based on ST:Nemesis, are incorrect (because those show the effective combat yields of torpedoes). Explain incidents like "Pegasus," in which the ship's magazine would be severely depleted by the destruction of a 5-10km asteroid, even though this is a situation in which the E-D should have used its alleged planet-killer torpedoes. EXPLAIN HOW these incidents are possible, given your new hypothesis claiming torpedo firepower well into the MT range, and perhaps even higher.

It's like walking into a church and trying to convince everyone that God doesn't exist. So take it as my concession if you want. I just wanted to give it a try.

Precisely. You've ignored the points I brought up about Nemesis and "Pegasus," because you've been content to use vague and unsubstantiated incidents in an effort to disprove limits that have been dictated more clearly.

I think "The Die Is Cast" deserves a dedicated essay.

It's trotted out every time a Trekkie enters the fray, and I've yet to hear someone put a new spin on it. There are so many misunderstandings about what went on in that episode that it's goofy.

1--Shockwaves aren't evidence of massive power. This is contraindicated by the LACK OF FUCKING FIREBALLS. It's contradicted by the speed w/ which the ripples spread across the surface, something no amount of raw energy can account for. It cannot get any simpler than that.

2--30% of the entire planetary crust isn't "destroyed," whatever that means.

This is contradicted by the Tal'Shiar's computer projection--that which the ENTIRE OPERATION was based on--and probably refers to a single selected grid of crust.

If that's not the case, then the classic "sensors were being lied to" is PERFECTLY acceptable.

3--The destruction timeframe was 1 hour for the crust, and 4-5 hours for the mantle.

I don't have a problem with this, actually. With all respect to everyone involved, Lovok's impersonator never said the fleet was to destroy the entire mantle. He simply said the mantle was part of their target.

Some people concluded this based in part on hearsay, I fear, hearsay which invented dialogue about an "exposed core."

Besideswhich, as I have long posited, they were probably only striking the upper-portion of the mantle, which is mostly solid. This is consistent with the thickness of the crust vs. the thickness of the solid upper-mantle. See http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere, which states:

Under the influence of the low-intensity, long-term stresses that drive plate tectonic motions, the lithosphere responds essentially as a rigid shell whilst the asthenosphere [lower mantle, far larger] behaves as a highly viscous fluid.

...The lithosphere includes the crust (whether continental or oceanic) and the uppermost part of the upper mantle. It thins to a few kilometres at ocean spreading centres, thickens to about 100 - 150 km under the older parts of ocean basins, and is up to 250 - 300 km thick under continental shield areas. Hence, whilst the crust is an integral part of the lithosphere, the lithosphere is mainly composed of mantle rocks. This is why authors sometimes state, loosely, that the lithosphere is the uppermost part of the mantle - they are choosing to disregard the thin veneer of crustal rocks.


If an avg. crust thickness of about 40 km required an hour to attack, 5 hours vs. the 100-300 km thick lithosphere fits the operation's timeframe fairly well.

So I think we can probably dismiss the idea that the Founder homeworld was geogically aberrant. As Ossus said, the fleet simply wasn't going to attack the molten portions of the mantle...how could you? WHY would you? It's not as if Founders are hiding in liquid rock!

4--I've heard WILDLY different accounts of the no. of starships involved in the bombardment fleet.

Once and for all, there were 20. There were 6 Warbirds present, and 14 Keldons.

Not long ago, someone even said that the Romulans had lost SIXTY Warbirds at the Founder's homeworld!

5--The fleet wasn't holding back.

I've heard the fleet WAS pulling punches from many Trekkies over the years, from James Grady Ward (anyone remember him?) to people elsewhere on the internet.

Why were they holding back? Enabrain Tain said his plan was to decloak and "begin massive bombardment." That doesn't sound like holding back to me.

I think the idea was that, since the fleet detected no planetary defenses, it could "take its time." Could =/ DOES. I COULD train legs ten days in a row if I wanted to. Would I?

Unless I wanted to end up more overtrained than Jim Fixx, hell no. I'd probably lose at least an inch off my thighs and be weak as hell.

The fleet had nothing to gain by pulling its pud in orbit. They were unleashing hell.

6--All the way back before ASVS was created, I've heard that there was a lot of shit in the atmosphere so we couldn't see the explosions.

?!?! Then why could Odo see the sky in "The Search" so clearly? Why would a CLOUD prevent us from seeing a huge fireball?

7--...

I think that's it, though I'll probably think of other examples. Suffice to say that episode has spawned more bullshit than almost anything since, with the likely exceptions of a Warcruiser's demise in "In the Beginning" and the Shadow-smashing bombs of "Into the Fire."

Vexx is a liar. He brought SW in.

I think "The Die Is Cast" deserves a dedicated essay.

It's trotted out every time a Trekkie enters the fray, and I've yet to hear someone put a new spin on it. There are so many misunderstandings about what went on in that episode that it's goofy.

With all due respect, I go by the dialogue. The fleet came, started doing whatever they did, said the crust would take 1 hour and the mantle 5, quite frankly that could mean the entire crust and the entire mantle, or it could mean simply a portion of it.

1--Shockwaves aren't evidence of massive power. This is contraindicated by the LACK OF FUCKING FIREBALLS. It's contradicted by the speed w/ which the ripples spread across the surface, something no amount of raw energy can account for. It cannot get any simpler than that.

There have been other technologies which were seen doing a lot of damage without the massively huge fireball. Most examples I can think of come from SW unfortunately which I'm trying not to bring up. The point of the matter wasnt to say that the shockwaves were the evidence of massive power, SIMPLY that not all heavily-damaging weapons need to create a giant fireball in terms of 24th century technology.

2--30% of the entire planetary crust isn't "destroyed," whatever that means.

This is contradicted by the Tal'Shiar's computer projection--that which the ENTIRE OPERATION was based on--and probably refers to a single selected grid of crust.

If that's not the case, then the classic "sensors were being lied to" is PERFECTLY acceptable.

It probably didn't mean the entire crust. Unless somehow their weapons shot all the way around the planet to hit the other side. It probably refers to 30% of the crust around the area they were bombarding.

3--The destruction timeframe was 1 hour for the crust, and 4-5 hours for the mantle.

I don't have a problem with this, actually. With all respect to everyone involved, Lovok's impersonator never said the fleet was to destroy the entire mantle. He simply said the mantle was part of their target.

I agree wholeheartedly. The entire dialogue might just have meant, "if we keep going, then in 5 hours the mantle will be destroyed." Of course, they could have been overestimating themselves (as is routine) or simply exhaggerating (which is also routine).

o I think we can probably dismiss the idea that the Founder homeworld was geogically aberrant. As Ossus said, the fleet simply wasn't going to attack the molten portions of the mantle...how could you? WHY would you? It's not as if Founders are hiding in liquid rock!

There's no tactical reason for annihilating the planet to that degree, no. But consider the attackers, the Romulans and Cardassians. They probably wanted to annihilate the planet as a show of strength and mercilessness.

5--The fleet wasn't holding back.

I've heard the fleet WAS pulling punches from many Trekkies over the years, from James Grady Ward (anyone remember him?) to people elsewhere on the internet.

Why were they holding back? Enabrain Tain said his plan was to decloak and "begin massive bombardment." That doesn't sound like holding back to me.

I dont think they were holding back either, and I can imagine that their bombardment would probably have been very costly to them power-wise.

I think that's it, though I'll probably think of other examples. Suffice to say that episode has spawned more bullshit than almost anything since, with the likely exceptions of a Warcruiser's demise in "In the Beginning" and the Shadow-smashing bombs of "Into the Fire."

Yes, I agree. From both sides. From what I can tell the most popular anti-Trek arguement is that "The footage doesn't match the dialogue, so they must be mistaken/lying/stupid/wrong in some way." Which doesn't really add up. Nobody seemed surprised about the crust being destroyed in 1 hour and the mantle in 5. If it's impossible for ST ships to do that, you would think they would say something like "holy shit! What is that, made out of jello?!", but they didn't.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that ST ships are capable of blowing a planet to hell with a single thought. I personally think it would be impossible even for all the ships in the Alpha quadrant. But they are capable of planet-wide destruction, a la Garek's comments of turning the Homeworld into burning cinder, the TOS mentionings of ridding a planet of life, TDiC, etc. Given that there wasn't extensive evident damage to the planet, I think their "destroying the crust and mantle" claim probably meant shattering it to the point of causing heavy tactonic destruction. In any case, you can't do that with a few 60 megaton photon torpedoes.

And I'm not even going to reply to GAT. He flings around the word "liar" like it was the 4th of july (even though it is....)

Thought i'd put another opinion here, its from DITL.org. Dont start, I know what most of you think about that site, but extra calcs couldnt hurt.

The sites high end calcs put the Romulan/Cardassian torpedoes at 20 billion Megatons a piece. (!)

His low end calcs put the torpedoes at 24,000 Megatons each. (!)

For reference and full calculations on this, go to DITL.org, visit 'Articles' and go to 'Torpedo Yields'. And scroll to 'DS9'.

20 billion eh? Ouch.

EDIT: Forgot to put the word 'each' in.

TurboPhaser wrote:Thought i'd put another opinion here, its from DITL.org. Dont start, I know what most of you think about that site, but extra calcs couldnt hurt.

The sites high end calcs put the Romulan/Cardassian torpedoes at 20 billion Megatons a piece. (!)

His low end calcs put the torpedoes at 24,000 Megatons each. (!)

For reference and full calculations on this, go to DITL.org, visit 'Articles' and go to 'Torpedo Yields'. And scroll to 'DS9'.

20 billion eh? Ouch.

EDIT: Forgot to put the word 'each' in.

Yes. It's called Graham Kennedey never left the VS debates, and wants to inflate ST's weapons yields. His numbers are bunk without some serious backing behind them.

The problems with the TDIC statement that 30% of the crust was destroyed in the opening volley is twofold:

1. We SAW a good chunk of the Romulan/Cardassian fleet opening up on the planet. We then SAW the resultant damage to the planet itself. Even if we included the entire "shockwave" as part of the area that was destroyed, it STILL wouldn't cover anywhere near 30% of the planetary surface.
2. The destruction of 30% of the planetary surface in the opening volley is inconsistent with the Romulan'ss/Cardassian's original timeframe for the operation, by which it would take one hour to destroy the crust of the planet.

Thus, Vexx, I have considerable difficulty in subscribing to your method of ignoring visual effects, simply because the dialogue is inconsistent (potentially indicative of false sensor readings?). The visuals, however, are less likely to be incorrect when there is a contradiction.

Edit: "Good chunk of the Romulan/Cardassian fleet"=7 or 8/20 ships: Three Romulan warbirds, the other four or five are Cardassian battlecruisers.

Vexx wrote:1--Shockwaves aren't evidence of massive power. This is contraindicated by the LACK OF FUCKING FIREBALLS. It's contradicted by the speed w/ which the ripples spread across the surface, something no amount of raw energy can account for. It cannot get any simpler than that.

There have been other technologies which were seen doing a lot of damage without the massively huge fireball. Most examples I can think of come from SW unfortunately which I'm trying not to bring up. The point of the matter wasnt to say that the shockwaves were the evidence of massive power, SIMPLY that not all heavily-damaging weapons need to create a giant fireball in terms of 24th century technology.[/quote]

When have you not seen a "massively huge fireball" in SW when there should have been one? For that matter, cite an example of an incident of giant firepowers that do not create giant fireballs IN AN ATMOSPHERE.

It probably didn't mean the entire crust. Unless somehow their weapons shot all the way around the planet to hit the other side. It probably refers to 30% of the crust around the area they were bombarding.

Then, define the area that they were bombarding. Give a context within which the quote has meaning, or don't use it as evidence in favor of your theory.

I agree wholeheartedly. The entire dialogue might just have meant, "if we keep going, then in 5 hours the mantle will be destroyed." Of course, they could have been overestimating themselves (as is routine) or simply exhaggerating (which is also routine).

What? What happened to their planned attack? Why would they decide to stop even before they realized that their attack was failing?

There's no tactical reason for annihilating the planet to that degree, no. But consider the attackers, the Romulans and Cardassians. They probably wanted to annihilate the planet as a show of strength and mercilessness.

Not really. They were just interested in wiping out the Founders and (indirectly) the JH. They made no mention of intimidating the Jem'Hadar--in fact, they acknowledged before their attack that the JH might launch retaliatory strikes. Also remember that the Founder who replaced Luvok stated unequivocally that the Founders were concerned with the Obsidian Order and the Tal'Shiar not because of their ruthlessness, but because of their EFFICIENCY. Something's not right, here.

I dont think they were holding back either, and I can imagine that their bombardment would probably have been very costly to them power-wise.

I've never heard this claim, actually, but the evidence does not seem to fit it, either.

Yes, I agree. From both sides. From what I can tell the most popular anti-Trek arguement is that "The footage doesn't match the dialogue, so they must be mistaken/lying/stupid/wrong in some way." Which doesn't really add up. Nobody seemed surprised about the crust being destroyed in 1 hour and the mantle in 5. If it's impossible for ST ships to do that, you would think they would say something like "holy shit! What is that, made out of jello?!", but they didn't.

Nobody seemed surprised with their 30% destruction of the crust, either, but that IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE OTHER PROJECTION THAT YOU JUST SAID NOBODY WAS SURPRISED ABOUT. It ALSO doesn't match the visual evidence, which actually doesn't fit with either dialogue.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that ST ships are capable of blowing a planet to hell with a single thought. I personally think it would be impossible even for all the ships in the Alpha quadrant. But they are capable of planet-wide destruction, a la Garek's comments of turning the Homeworld into burning cinder, the TOS mentionings of ridding a planet of life, TDiC, etc. Given that there wasn't extensive evident damage to the planet, I think their "destroying the crust and mantle" claim probably meant shattering it to the point of causing heavy tactonic destruction. In any case, you can't do that with a few 60 megaton photon torpedoes.

Clearly the ships of the AQ are capable of seriously damaging a planet's biosphere, but we also have to figure out what the limits are on this disruption. While I wouldn't say that 60 MT is out of the question, I would also be surprised given that the Maquis missiles targetting Cardassia were only projected as killing a few million Cardassians, despite the heavily concentrated population centers observed on Cardassia and the number of missiles involved in the attack (which would presumably have been the largest warheads available).

And I'm not even going to reply to GAT. He flings around the word "liar" like it was the 4th of july (even though it is....)

Nonetheless, you were the one who brought up SW repeatedly and then threatened to run away because it was being brought up too much.

Vexx wrote: And I'm not even going to reply to GAT. He flings around the word "liar" like it was the 4th of july (even though it is....)

I called you a liar when you claimed a Burke has enough megaton ranged nukes to destroy the Enterprise (it does not). I called you a liar again because you start accusing us of bringing SW into it when YOU are the only one who brought it up.


And this is a classic Style over Substance fallacy