Transporter Weaponry

[Chmee]

Isn't the transporter really a starship's best weapon against an unshielded opponent?

Why waste time slicing into the hull with phasers when you can just dematerialize a key component in the antimatter containment system, or beam the whole crew off the bridge and then 'dump the buffer' or whatever other techbabble you want to use for not re-materializing them?

[Darth Wong]

Isn't the transporter really a starship's best weapon against an unshielded opponent?

Why waste time slicing into the hull with phasers when you can just dematerialize a key component in the antimatter containment system, or beam the whole crew off the bridge and then 'dump the buffer' or whatever other techbabble you want to use for not re-materializing them?

You have to drop your own shields to do this. Why would you want to take that chance when you can just blast them with your main weapons? Why invent a tactic in order to serve the technology, rather than making technology serve your tactics?

[Chmee]

Isn't the transporter really a starship's best weapon against an unshielded opponent?

Why waste time slicing into the hull with phasers when you can just dematerialize a key component in the antimatter containment system, or beam the whole crew off the bridge and then 'dump the buffer' or whatever other techbabble you want to use for not re-materializing them?

You have to drop your own shields to do this. Why would you want to take that chance when you can just blast them with your main weapons? Why invent a tactic in order to serve the technology, rather than making technology serve your tactics?

Good point for TOS era onward ... at least to the extent that canon is consistent on having to drop shields to use the transporter.

In that case, it would be a tactic you'd only use after your own shields were down ... which does seem to happen once in a while. Of course, only when shields were down but transporters still functional.

[Chmee]

Transporters are easily jammed and have short ranges. You would die with the enemy warp core.

Transporters can't be used if your own shields are up, so to beam an enemy requires opening yourself up.

Well, 'short' is an ambiguous term isn't it? They work from high planetary orbit, and they've certainly been used to beam somebody off a 'just about to explode' ship a time or two without the rescuing ship being destroyed.

[Robert Walper]

Isn't the transporter really a starship's best weapon against an unshielded opponent?

Why waste time slicing into the hull with phasers when you can just dematerialize a key component in the antimatter containment system, or beam the whole crew off the bridge and then 'dump the buffer' or whatever other techbabble you want to use for not re-materializing them?

You have to drop your own shields to do this. Why would you want to take that chance when you can just blast them with your main weapons? Why invent a tactic in order to serve the technology, rather than making technology serve your tactics?

Efficiency? Surely transporter usage consumes far less power then their weapon systems. Furthermore, transporters can be used through a starship's own shields. We've seen this several times IIRC, including in First Contact when the E-E beamed aboard the Defiant's crew.

Mind you, I agree this is a rather complicated way of doing a simple task of destroying a target. That's what a starship's weapon systems are for after all. (sound familar Mike? )

[Batman]

Efficiency? Surely transporter usage consumes far less power then their weapon systems.

Somehow I'm not certain a transporter uses less power than a torpedo launcher.

Furthermore, transporters can be used through a starship's own shields. We've seen this several times IIRC, including in First Contact when the E-E beamed aboard the Defiant's crew.

FC might be explained by Enterprise dropping the shield section facing Reliant for this.
While we have seen beaming through fluctuations/boundaries/technobabblities in shields, the general point remains.

[Nick Lancaster]

Power considerations apart, when items are beamed up, they are usually marked either by communicator (pinpointing the target) or proximity to same (cargo), or on a target grid (transporter platform).

What you have proposed is precision beaming of widget x out of critical equipment. Knowing the enemy has a timepiece is a far stretch from knowing the exact arrangement of gears and springs, or even if it has them.

If this were possible, then we could technically beam someone's heart out of their body, or conduct organ transplants in a similar manner (I believe Worf's spinal replacement did use some replication technology, but I don't recall if it was a direct beam-in/beam-out deal). We could 'beam out' cancerous cells, or use stored images to restore missing/injured parts. (Don't get me started on the missing mass problem of 'Rascals'.)

[Chmee]

Power considerations apart, when items are beamed up, they are usually marked either by communicator (pinpointing the target) or proximity to same (cargo), or on a target grid (transporter platform).

What you have proposed is precision beaming of widget x out of critical equipment. Knowing the enemy has a timepiece is a far stretch from knowing the exact arrangement of gears and springs, or even if it has them.

If this were possible, then we could technically beam someone's heart out of their body, or conduct organ transplants in a similar manner (I believe Worf's spinal replacement did use some replication technology, but I don't recall if it was a direct beam-in/beam-out deal). We could 'beam out' cancerous cells, or use stored images to restore missing/injured parts. (Don't get me started on the missing mass problem of 'Rascals'.)

Well, I think part of the appeal of this weapon is that precision at the same level as human, or even cargo, transport is not only not needed, but not even desireable.

You're not trying to beam the target to you in healthy shape, you're just trying to get it to dematerialize and fall apart, which seems pretty easy if you start disabling safety protocols to turn your cargo transporter into a mass-disintegrator. I don't want an intact copy of the plasma-flow regulator (insert equivalent technobabble widget description), I just want it to fall apart catastrophically. Or remove a significant chunk of the structural support on a nacelle strut ... whatever.

Although we see a lot of transporter activity built around the kind of device-aided location you describe, we also see a lot of transporter activity based solely on ship's sensors detecting the target and getting a lock.

[lPeregrine]

What you have proposed is precision beaming of widget x out of critical equipment. Knowing the enemy has a timepiece is a far stretch from knowing the exact arrangement of gears and springs, or even if it has them.

Precision really doesn't matter, as long as you could get a general idea of the target system's location. You don't need to remove a specific gear from the timepiece, any random one will make it stop working. Or more likely, simply a cubic meter or ten of the system you want removed. It's pretty good odds that somewhere in that cube is something critical.


And yes, in most battles, if you can get your opponent's shields down and safely lower yours without taking any damage, you've already won and the transporter weapon would just be a waste of research time. But it could be priceless if you're trying to disable a target for capture. Why risk them turning right as your "precision" phaser shot hits and causing fatal damage when you can beam out their weapon systems?

[brianeyci]

When you use the transporter, you have to lower your shields. In a large fleet battle, that is fatal.

It is that simple. I suppose that the Federation in large fleet battles could have several ships beyond visual range (BVR) to either transport in torpedoes or transport out critical components. However, who knows how effective this tactic will be in a chaotic fleet battle.

Transporters have been used in Voyager to transport a torpedo onto a Borg ship to destroy it, and discussed in another episode. So it is not foreign to Starfleet.

Also, as mentioned before, with the entanglement explaination precision is not necessary. You just need to know the general location of certain components, or know where to transport a torpedo into the enemy's warp core.

Knowing the shield frequency of an opponent does not allow you to use transporters. This is obvious because you have to lower your own shields to transport and you would know your own frequency.

The presumption is that it is easier to transport in a weapon than to fire and destroy the enemy. In small battles this may be true, but in fleet battles if you lower your shields you expose yourself and are probably fucked.

Brian

[Alyeska]

Transporters are easily jammed and have short ranges. You would die with the enemy warp core.

Transporters can't be used if your own shields are up, so to beam an enemy requires opening yourself up.

Transporters are not easily jammed. It is easy to jam transporters to the point where safely beaming a living being is jeporized. Beaming objects without much care for how frequently it survives is a little different. Beam over anti-matter, boom.

[Alyeska]

Isn't the transporter really a starship's best weapon against an unshielded opponent?

Why waste time slicing into the hull with phasers when you can just dematerialize a key component in the antimatter containment system, or beam the whole crew off the bridge and then 'dump the buffer' or whatever other techbabble you want to use for not re-materializing them?

You have to drop your own shields to do this. Why would you want to take that chance when you can just blast them with your main weapons? Why invent a tactic in order to serve the technology, rather than making technology serve your tactics?

Since the start of Voyager we have seen repeated examples of transporters being used while shields were never lowered. This is no longer the issue it once was.

[brianeyci]

Since the start of Voyager we have seen repeated examples of transporters being used while shields were never lowered. This is no longer the issue it once was.

Where, don't say Nemesis. Do they explicitly state that the shields are up and transporters are in use?

TNG had example of shields being used, since O'Brien knew the frequency of Fed shield and transported through it and the Phoenix's shields. I was under the impression that this was a one-shot thing though.

Brian

[Jon]

When Picard is beamed off the Enterprise following Shinzon's 'mind rape' of Deanna, the first thing super-rike does is raise the shields (though that might be general defense)... and as far as I know, the Scimitar can't beam a boarding party across until there is a hole in the shields... so evidently it is still an issue.

[Nick Lancaster]

What you have proposed is precision beaming of widget x out of critical equipment. Knowing the enemy has a timepiece is a far stretch from knowing the exact arrangement of gears and springs, or even if it has them.

Precision really doesn't matter, as long as you could get a general idea of the target system's location. You don't need to remove a specific gear from the timepiece, any random one will make it stop working. Or more likely, simply a cubic meter or ten of the system you want removed. It's pretty good odds that somewhere in that cube is something critical.

But do you know what the gizmo looks like to begin with? Can the transporter be aimed with a 'pick a part, any part' strategy?

Clearly, the transporter must be given specific dimensions, which is why you don't get six feet of sod as well as the crewman standing on it.

You'd do better to beam away the personnel monitoring the equipment, which, depending on battle conditions, is a much more risky process. (Of course, since you don't really care if the enemy beams successfully, you can just energize away and deal with the complaints from the cleaning crew later. "Damn it, Sir, that's the eighth time this month we've had to clean up ... well ... THAT!"

The transporter-as-weapon concept just seems to be an overcomplicated approach to things.

[Star-Blighter]

Isn't the transporter really a starship's best weapon against an unshielded opponent?

Why waste time slicing into the hull with phasers when you can just dematerialize a key component in the antimatter containment system, or beam the whole crew off the bridge and then 'dump the buffer' or whatever other techbabble you want to use for not re-materializing them?

You have to drop your own shields to do this. Why would you want to take that chance when you can just blast them with your main weapons? Why invent a tactic in order to serve the technology, rather than making technology serve your tactics?

Efficiency? Surely transporter usage consumes far less power then their weapon systems. Furthermore, transporters can be used through a starship's own shields. We've seen this several times IIRC, including in First Contact when the E-E beamed aboard the Defiant's crew.

Mind you, I agree this is a rather complicated way of doing a simple task of destroying a target. That's what a starship's weapon systems are for after all. (sound familar Mike? )

I'm trying to concieve a warship that would eschew primary weapons in favor of an unconventional technology which isn't all that reliable for the sake of "efficiency".

My head hurts from the stupid.

[Patrick Degan]

Transporters are easily jammed and have short ranges. You would die with the enemy warp core.

Transporters can't be used if your own shields are up, so to beam an enemy requires opening yourself up.

Transporters are not easily jammed. It is easy to jam transporters to the point where safely beaming a living being is jeporized. Beaming objects without much care for how frequently it survives is a little different. Beam over anti-matter, boom.

Transporters are very easily jammed and we've seen numerous natural phenomena block transporters in the several series.

[CJvR]

Beaming objects without much care for how frequently it survives is a little different. Beam over anti-matter, boom.

But that would be VIOLENT , not even the savage Klingoffs would do that...

Starfleet battles always recomend great generosity with T-bombs if your opponent is kind enough to drop your shields.

[lPeregrine]

But do you know what the gizmo looks like to begin with? Can the transporter be aimed with a 'pick a part, any part' strategy?

Clearly, the transporter must be given specific dimensions, which is why you don't get six feet of sod as well as the crewman standing on it.

Dimensions: 1 meter x 1 meter cube centered at coordinates x,y,x, where x,y,z is the target's engine section. You keep assuming the only way to disable something is to precisely remove a tiny component without touching anything else. What I'm suggesting is the equivalent of smashing the computer systems with a hammer. Hit it enough times and eventually you're going to break something important.

You'd do better to beam away the personnel monitoring the equipment, which, depending on battle conditions, is a much more risky process. (Of course, since you don't really care if the enemy beams successfully, you can just energize away and deal with the complaints from the cleaning crew later. "Damn it, Sir, that's the eighth time this month we've had to clean up ... well ... THAT!"

Except that targeting the crew is more difficult and a missed target is less likely to actually do anything. On the other hand, even if your aim is off and you beam out the wrong cube of engine components, you're still probably going to get something important.

The transporter-as-weapon concept just seems to be an overcomplicated approach to things.

Of course it is, that's why you'd only use it in very rare circumstances. It would be priceless for disabling a target's weapons systems for capture. Pirates/commerce raiders would pay its weight in gold for a working transporter weapon, since you no longer have to worry about a phaser shot over-penetrating and destroying the cargo.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Transporters are very easily jammed and we've seen numerous natural phenomena block transporters in the several series.

Does it matter if they're jammed? Haven't most of these incidents involved trying to transport people or other things that need to reach the other end undamaged?

If even a partial, corrupted beam could get through, it would be more than enough. It doesn't matter what happens to the target once it's beamed out, as long as something gets removed. Even if the beam is 50% jammed (enough to be fatal to anyone being beamed over), that's still damaging the target.

[Patrick Degan]

Transporters are very easily jammed and we've seen numerous natural phenomena block transporters in the several series.

Does it matter if they're jammed? Haven't most of these incidents involved trying to transport people or other things that need to reach the other end undamaged?

If even a partial, corrupted beam could get through, it would be more than enough. It doesn't matter what happens to the target once it's beamed out, as long as something gets removed. Even if the beam is 50% jammed (enough to be fatal to anyone being beamed over), that's still damaging the target.

It matters because an unfocussed beam isn't going to be able to pick up anything. There is a distinct difference between a beam which is interferred with after the transport process has been underway and one which is blocked by external interference; in the latter case, the process isn't even initiated at the destination end because it's prevented from locking onto a target in the first place. See Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

[lPeregrine]

It matters because an unfocussed beam isn't going to be able to pick up anything. There is a distinct difference between a beam which is interferred with after the transport process has been underway and one which is blocked by external interference; in the latter case, the process isn't even initiated at the destination end because it's prevented from locking onto a target in the first place. See Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

Does it state that "can't lock on" is an absolute? Maybe (and more likely) it means that it can't lock on clearly enough to safely transport the target. Having an even slightly unfocused beam would be fatal to a person, you can't take the chance of having half their brain get left behind. Any sane designer is going to include a block on transporting if it can't get a perfect signal, to prevent this.

The same is not true when the intent is to destroy the target. It doesn't matter if you can't get a clear lock and end up leaving bits of your target behind, you're trying to smash and rip apart the target anyway.

[Nick Lancaster]

Dimensions: 1 meter x 1 meter cube centered at coordinates x,y,x, where x,y,z is the target's engine section. You keep assuming the only way to disable something is to precisely remove a tiny component without touching anything else. What I'm suggesting is the equivalent of smashing the computer systems with a hammer. Hit it enough times and eventually you're going to break something important.

Except the transporter beam is not analogous to a hammer. It is a precision system that requires specific coordinates to engage.

You're not so much beaming whatever is in the ACB as identifying an object and using the ACB to prevent additional material from entering the beam / preserve quantum states. Now, given that you've suggested beaming mechanical components, you might not deal with the latter - but if you take a look at the warp drive and electro-plasma systems, there are events occuring within that you simply wouldn't want to grab a chunk of. Instead, you would look to dematerialize a valve or injector - requiring the knowledge of the system.

Additionally, if you did a blind transport and grabbed part of a matter/anti-matter reaction, what would you do with it? I suppose it is possible to beam-to-dispersal, but that's usually from the transporter platform into space ... not a remote target into space.

Generally, we've been shown transporter technology to deal with coherent units: a person, a container, a defined quantity. Not a general 'meter square at x,y,z'. Even the Borg cut a section out of the Enterprise and tractored it in, despite their having some form of transporter technology.

If the transporter has this 'gross/fine' adjustment, I would think it would be even more haphazard than usual. "Oh, gosh, I forgot to check, and I only beamed up the Away Team's hearts ..."

Of course it is, that's why you'd only use it in very rare circumstances. It would be priceless for disabling a target's weapons systems for capture. Pirates/commerce raiders would pay its weight in gold for a working transporter weapon, since you no longer have to worry about a phaser shot over-penetrating and destroying the cargo.

How often do Starfleet vessels engage in piracy or commerce raids? There is no reason for the specialized protocol to exist on the rare chance that the ship will be tasked with such a mission.

But, let's assume it's common knowledge. Anyone with a transporter can do what you've suggested.

Shields block a transporter beam. If you are engaged with an enemy, there is no reason to increase your risk by allowing an aperture for transporter beam usage through shields.

If you have disabled the opponent's shields, why do you need to do this fancy-dan transporter crap?

[Patrick Degan]

It matters because an unfocussed beam isn't going to be able to pick up anything. There is a distinct difference between a beam which is interferred with after the transport process has been underway and one which is blocked by external interference; in the latter case, the process isn't even initiated at the destination end because it's prevented from locking onto a target in the first place. See Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

Does it state that "can't lock on" is an absolute? Maybe (and more likely) it means that it can't lock on clearly enough to safely transport the target. Having an even slightly unfocused beam would be fatal to a person, you can't take the chance of having half their brain get left behind. Any sane designer is going to include a block on transporting if it can't get a perfect signal, to prevent this.

The same is not true when the intent is to destroy the target. It doesn't matter if you can't get a clear lock and end up leaving bits of your target behind, you're trying to smash and rip apart the target anyway.

You're missing the point. The failure of a transporter beam to get a clear lock on an object means that the beaming process cannot even be initiated. It doesn't matter whether the object in question is a living person or a piece of equipment. The beam must focus at the point of contact in order for said process to even be possible. Otherwise, transport does not occur.

[lPeregrine]

Except the transporter beam is not analogous to a hammer. It is a precision system that requires specific coordinates to engage.

You're not so much beaming whatever is in the ACB as identifying an object and using the ACB to prevent additional material from entering the beam / preserve quantum states. Now, given that you've suggested beaming mechanical components, you might not deal with the latter - but if you take a look at the warp drive and electro-plasma systems, there are events occuring within that you simply wouldn't want to grab a chunk of. Instead, you would look to dematerialize a valve or injector - requiring the knowledge of the system.

It's absolutely analogous to a hammer in this case. Suggesting that the transporter effect requires a precisely defined shape and is not physically capable of transporting a defined region is just insane. The transporting typically seen is targeted precisely by choice, because that's what the job requires. There is no reason why the effect could not be targeted on an area. In fact, this is exactly what happens in STIV, transporting the entire volume of water along with the whales.

Without this precision, the transporter becomes a hammer. Instead of identifying the precise part you want removed, you start cutting holes in that section of the ship until you hit something important. If the first try doesn't disable it, you beam another cube out of that area. Eventually you hammer the area enough times that the system stops working because too much of it is now a cloud of drifting wreckage outside the ship.

Additionally, if you did a blind transport and grabbed part of a matter/anti-matter reaction, what would you do with it? I suppose it is possible to beam-to-dispersal, but that's usually from the transporter platform into space ... not a remote target into space.

Maybe because all the times it's been seen, the goal has been to get rid of something, not to trash an opponent's ship? Is there any reason why direct point to point transport would not work if the destination point is a random spot in space?

Generally, we've been shown transporter technology to deal with coherent units: a person, a container, a defined quantity. Not a general 'meter square at x,y,z'. Even the Borg cut a section out of the Enterprise and tractored it in, despite their having some form of transporter technology.

The borg are hardly examples of tactical brilliance.

And again, we see precise transport because that's what the job requires. If you're beaming up your crew, you don't grab random sections of their bodies and toss them into space.

And if you don't remember seeing volume transport, go watch STIV again. See all that water that got transported along with the target?

If the transporter has this 'gross/fine' adjustment, I would think it would be even more haphazard than usual. "Oh, gosh, I forgot to check, and I only beamed up the Away Team's hearts ..."

Which is a question of control software, not the transporter itself. The fact that the transporter normally has safety features that lock it in precise-only operation doesn't mean it is not physically capable of doing other things.

How often do Starfleet vessels engage in piracy or commerce raids? There is no reason for the specialized protocol to exist on the rare chance that the ship will be tasked with such a mission.

Why not? This is the same starfleet that sees the need to put holodecks and luxury rooms for its crew on combat ships. Compared to that, the requirements of adding a minor software update are zero.

And as for the mission:

1) Starfleet's military policy is pretty pathetic. They wouldn't do these things because they're too afraid of the political consequences, or too reluctant to get involved in an "unfair" fight.

2) Who said it was limited to starfleet only? They're not the only ones with transporters you know.

Shields block a transporter beam. If you are engaged with an enemy, there is no reason to increase your risk by allowing an aperture for transporter beam usage through shields.

If you have disabled the opponent's shields, why do you need to do this fancy-dan transporter crap?

I never claimed it was useful in the average battle. It's a weapon for specific situations, nothing more, nothing less. But if you're trying to capture a target intact, disabling systems by transporter would invovle less risk of over-penetration and destroying the target.

Or what about police work? What if you want to stop an escaping/fighting ship? Would you rather risk your phaser shot penetrating a bit too deep and killing the crew or limit that risk by using a method that can be restricted to weapons/engines/whatever.

--------------------------------------------

You're missing the point. The failure of a transporter beam to get a clear lock on an object means that the beaming process cannot even be initiated. It doesn't matter whether the object in question is a living person or a piece of equipment. The beam must focus at the point of contact in order for said process to even be possible. Otherwise, transport does not occur.

No, you're missing the point completely. Yes, so far we have seen transporter locks easily blocked. But in all those cases, the object to be transported is something you want to arrive intact at the other end. Getting 95% of a person transported would probably be fatal for them. So there is naturally a very low tolerance for lock error, if the transporter can't get a perfect lock, it refuses to initiate the transport.

But there is no reason to assume this is a physical limit of the transporter when the safety feature explanation is so obvious. If the purpose is to cause damage to the target, there is no reason why a partial lock would stop the process. Sure, it might not work very well and you probably wouldn't get anything useful on the recieving end, but as long as something is removed from the target, its job is done.

[Nick Lancaster]

It's absolutely analogous to a hammer in this case. Suggesting that the transporter effect requires a precisely defined shape and is not physically capable of transporting a defined region is just insane. The transporting typically seen is targeted precisely by choice, because that's what the job requires. There is no reason why the effect could not be targeted on an area. In fact, this is exactly what happens in STIV, transporting the entire volume of water along with the whales.

No, I'm afraid you're the one who is insisting on a departure from reality.

Transporting whales with the surrounding water is about the same as transporting a person with the surrounding air. It is not the same as using that same transporter beam to remove only the whale's heart, or only a cubic meter of random whale.

You are assuming that the 'programming' to bring whales + water is precisely the same as beaming out a random chunk of engine and dispersing it.

It may seem similar, but you seem to be making some gross generalizations about the transporter, namely, that if it is capable of extreme precision, it must also work in a broader manner. Yet a pair of needle-nose pliers are not thus suited to coarser work.

Without this precision, the transporter becomes a hammer. Instead of identifying the precise part you want removed, you start cutting holes in that section of the ship until you hit something important. If the first try doesn't disable it, you beam another cube out of that area. Eventually you hammer the area enough times that the system stops working because too much of it is now a cloud of drifting wreckage outside the ship.

Again, you're assuming that the precision of the transporter is a sliding scale rather than a binary state - molecular vs. quantum resolution.

Maybe because all the times it's been seen, the goal has been to get rid of something, not to trash an opponent's ship? Is there any reason why direct point to point transport would not work if the destination point is a random spot in space?

Site-to-site transport requires the use of a secondary pattern buffer (TNG Technical Manual). That is not the same as beaming item x up and having it appear in orbit rather than on the transporter platform. Technically, you would have to have it enter the system and spit it back out again.

The borg are hardly examples of tactical brilliance.

And again, we see precise transport because that's what the job requires. If you're beaming up your crew, you don't grab random sections of their bodies and toss them into space.

And the fact that the Borg aren't members of the Von Clauzewitz Fan Club somehow proves your point?

We see precise transport because that is what the system is designed to do. You cannot use chopsticks to dig a mine, and you can't use a steam shovel to eat rice. You continue to presume that a precision tool must be adaptable to a general purpose.

And if you don't remember seeing volume transport, go watch STIV again. See all that water that got transported along with the target?

Did you see all that air that got transported along with Captain Kirk?

That's not the same as beaming a random chunk out of a mechanical system.

Which is a question of control software, not the transporter itself. The fact that the transporter normally has safety features that lock it in precise-only operation doesn't mean it is not physically capable of doing other things.

This is like arguing that a laser can stop being a coherent light source, or that a Formula One racecar is suitable for driving the kids to soccer practice. It is entirely possible to design a system that operates within strict tolerances and cannot be changed through software or other adjustments to be suited for operation outside those original parameters.

Why not? This is the same starfleet that sees the need to put holodecks and luxury rooms for its crew on combat ships. Compared to that, the requirements of adding a minor software update are zero.

The opulence of crew quarters and availability of holodeck systems have no bearing on the principles governing the transporter. You are not only presuming a precision tool is inherently suited to a more general task, you're assuming that it must be a software issue.

And as for the mission:

1) Starfleet's military policy is pretty pathetic. They wouldn't do these things because they're too afraid of the political consequences, or too reluctant to get involved in an "unfair" fight.

So you're arguing on behalf of ... who, exactly?

If it's as simple as a software patch, why haven't the Cardassians or the Romulans or the Klingons come up with this gem?

I never claimed it was useful in the average battle. It's a weapon for specific situations, nothing more, nothing less. But if you're trying to capture a target intact, disabling systems by transporter would invovle less risk of over-penetration and destroying the target.

Oh, but isn't over-penetration just a matter of changing the software?

And if you start beaming chunks out of an engine room, what are the odds that your goal of capturing the target intact will be met? (That is, you manage to grab the chunk of warp core that includes an injector nozzle ... suddenly, there's this uncontrolled spray of deuterium and anti-deuterium, the ship blows up. Ooooooops.)

Or what about police work? What if you want to stop an escaping/fighting ship? Would you rather risk your phaser shot penetrating a bit too deep and killing the crew or limit that risk by using a method that can be restricted to weapons/engines/whatever.

You're assuming that if you beam critical components out, the engine simply stops working. Yet catastrophic failure, because of the nature of warp engines, is highly likely. Even if your target were using fusion reactors, do you really think beaming random chunks out of them is safer than firing on them?

But there is no reason to assume this is a physical limit of the transporter when the safety feature explanation is so obvious. If the purpose is to cause damage to the target, there is no reason why a partial lock would stop the process. Sure, it might not work very well and you probably wouldn't get anything useful on the recieving end, but as long as something is removed from the target, its job is done.

Again, you're assuming this is a feature you can turn on/off or otherwise adjust at your whim. The transporter is not designed as a weapon; it was designed to facilitate the safe and complete transport of equipment and personnel. There is no reason to incorporate a feature that would render the device grossly unsafe.

The partial lock = failure is a fail-safe system; that is, it fails well (prevents transport) instead of failing poorly (beams regardless, you end up with Ensign Smith's lungs and spleen on the floor).