Yuuzhun Vong vs. Star Trek

[Picard]

Your dismissal of everything you don't like (including fact that G canon overrides any and all EU wank) does not mean it's not true.

About examples... scene when asteroid promptly obliterated ISD's bridge.

[Serafina]

Your dismissal of everything you don't like (including fact that G canon overrides any and all EU wank) does not mean it's not true.

So tell me then, retard: Where in G-canon does it say that SW-ships do not have very dense hulls?

5 000 kilometers is now more than 225 000 kilometers? How so?

Except that both of these numbers are essentially made up on your blog. Sorry, you loose.

Riiight. Can you show some of these?

I already did, shithead. You are assuming that the Enterprise destroys the whole asteroid in the episode "masks", even tough we only see them destroy a thin layer of it, their weapons are offline afterwards and there is another agency which has both cause and ability to do so. Everyone who watched that episode (or even read about it's plot) would know that they did NOT blow up the whole asteroid. Either way, it's false, but because it's so obvious it's very likely that it is a deliberate lie.

Official =/= canon. And I bet Lucas never saw Saxton's work, let alone acknowledged it as canon.

Wrong, fool. If it's official, it IS SW-Canon.

Plus any and every single scene from movies where Acclamators appear.

Evidence, shithead. Oh, you think because we don't see any big heavy turbolaser turrets, that says that they don't have medium turbolasers, which are typically mounted in the trench?

Yes, we see sub-kiloton to kiloton range shots being fired by ISD on... wait. We do have indirect evidence ...and estimation derived from it.

Liar. We see what they can do to a world with a BDZ. That's direct evidence.
Besides, if you want to throw out "estimations derived from it", you have to throw out your whole blog as well. Not that that is a bad idea.

About examples... scene when asteroid promptly obliterated ISD's bridge.

So you appeal to a hit on the least armored part of the ship in order to conclude that the ships armor is weak? Which wasn't even "obliterated", because we saw that the Captain was alive AFTER the impact? And have you actually calculated the impact energy of that asteroid, or taken conservation of momentum into account?

[Picard]

Evidence, shithead. Oh, you think because we don't see any big heavy turbolaser turrets, that says that they don't have medium turbolasers, which are typically mounted in the trench?

Beacouse we don't see them either. To remind you, we have few nice shots of acclamators head-on, and guess what? No goddamn guns.

https://ryan.delariviere.net/photo/d/28 ... ft_off.jpg

Except that both of these numbers are essentially made up on your blog. Sorry, you loose.

Except that both of these numbers are taken from canon. Sorry, I win.

I already did, shithead. You are assuming that the Enterprise destroys the whole asteroid in the episode "masks", even tough we only see them destroy a thin layer of it, their weapons are offline afterwards and there is another agency which has both cause and ability to do so. Everyone who watched that episode (or even read about it's plot) would know that they did NOT blow up the whole asteroid. Either way, it's false, but because it's so obvious it's very likely that it is a deliberate lie.

And if you actually bothered to read my blog, and not just skim through it, you would notice that I dropped that estimation.

Wrong, fool. If it's official, it IS SW-Canon.

Even when contradicted by higher canon? Fool?

Liar. We see what they can do to a world with a BDZ. That's direct evidence.
Besides, if you want to throw out "estimations derived from it", you have to throw out your whole blog as well. Not that that is a bad idea.

Ah, yes, "putting patches of forest on fire". Impressive indeed. And my blog is based on canon, unlike Saxton's ICS wank.

So you appeal to a hit on the least armored part of the ship in order to conclude that the ships armor is weak? Which wasn't even "obliterated", because we saw that the Captain was alive AFTER the impact? And have you actually calculated the impact energy of that asteroid, or taken conservation of momentum into account?

Entire bridge was destroyed from "neck" up. Ship itself was destroyed later, either due to chain reaction or additional collisions - and as for captain, he might or might not have been on bridge. And he disappeared shortly afterwards.

This, of course, is what seals the trek vs wars debate, regardless of everything else. Throw in the industrial lopsidedness too just for good measure.

True. We do have some extremely high Trek speeds observed, but these run contrary to remainder of canon.

EDIT: Graham Kennedy took (made up) "warp highways" as explanation for these inconsistencies, which fits well with what we see in canon.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Oh wow I didn't think this guy was still here.

Serafina is right, if we don't allow derivations fro indirect evidence, his blog goes "bye bye"

[Darth Yan]

actually picard, we don't see all of the ship's trench, meaning that it is possible for their to be guns. or the guns are really small. and a bdz isn't burned patches. It's melting the entire surface right down to the deepest parts of the crust. and your calcs are not canon because they are faulty and make mistiakes. Saxton is canon. Deal with it child. and no the bridge wasn't obliterated.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The typical SDN smackdown. Nicely done

[Darth Yan]

Really?

And his "it't canon" just struck a nerve. someone had to beat him down.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Really. It was short, brutal in the right places, and contains details on the flaws of his argument, in a few lines.

[Serafina]

See here at aprox. 5.00 for the scene where the asteroid hits the ISDs bridge. We see that the captain is still there after the impact, and from the scene where we see him he recoils and points at something before vanishing.
Even if we suppose that the bridge was completely destroyed, look at the size and speed of that asteroid. Consider that it is most likely solid nickel-iron like the rest of these asteroids and then try to calculate it's kinetic energy and momentum. And then tell me whether you think the bridge was weak because it could not survive such an impact, or not.

Regarding hull strength: assuming that the neutron pellets are added without contributing to the hulls strength is just laughable. They are most likely (since it would be the sensible thing to do) used as part of an alloy, so even small amounts could do a lot.
Furthermore, that's hardly the only evidence we have for very strong hulls - the fact that they can build SSDs and Death Stars without using structural integrity fields tells us that their materials have to be very strong, else those structures would collapse - and we know that even SSDs can land and launch from a planet, and that they need no active systems in order to stay intact in it's gravity field (the Lusankya stayed on Coruscant for a long time and later launched from it).

[Kythnos]

Ah, yes, except that even if SW ships can match ST firepower, ST ships totally stomp SW when it comes to issue of range.

Yet we know that they have far greater engagement ranges than ST right from G-canon

5 000 kilometers is now more than 225 000 kilometers? How so?

So where do you get the max range for Star Wars weapons? (if the number is not made up)

the DBY-827 could hit a target vessel at a range of 10 light minutes.

Unless 111,600,000 miles < 225,000 kilometers
Because that is a from CANNON quote, and unless you can show me proof that it is over written by a higher cannon it stands.

[Batman]

And it's overridden while we're at it but thank you very very very much, Adam.

[Serafina]

Regarding "General Order 24":
How about "The Neutral Zone", where they are surprised by the destruction of a couple of outposts and think that whoever did this was more powerful than them:

PICARD: Do you think we attacked your outposts?

TEBOK: Once we realized the level of destruction, we knew it could not have been you.

PICARD: I would like to offer a proposal.

THEI: An alliance? Between the Romulans and the Federation?

PICARD: Nothing so grandiose -- just this. Cooperation... whoever or whatever did this is more powerful than either of us.

THEI: Agreed.

They clearly state that whoever destroyed those outposts was "more powerful than either of us" - which means that neither of them could have done that. But if they can destroy whole civilizations, why would the destruction of a small outpost be impossible to them?
Why do we never see massive orbital bombardments? For example, look at the end of the Cardassian War - why did the Dominion only manage to destroy a single city, instead of the whole planets surface? They had no reason to hold back, did they? Why did they have to send ground troops, rather than just doing it from orbit?
Why are orbital bombardment never a concern when fighting against the Dominion, or against any other enemies? If a single ship was capable of wiping everyone off the face of a planet within a few hours, that should be a major concern - yet it never is.

Given that GO24 is only mentioned twice in TOS and never actually carried out, we can't conclude much from it.
The Die is Cast is inconclusive for similar reasons, and any firepower estimates from it are highly incompatible with other observed instances of firepower.

[Stofsk]

Regarding "General Order 24":
How about "The Neutral Zone", where they are surprised by the destruction of a couple of outposts and think that whoever did this was more powerful than them:

Nowhere in that quote did I read anything regarding the level of destruction those outposts suffered, and it proves nothing at all except that the level of destruction exceeds both their capabilities as well as the Federation's. Considering the Borg were responsible, it turns out Tebok's and Picard's suppositions were well-founded.

It certainly doesn't disprove the destructive capabilities the Federation (or the Romulans, or any other power) can bring to the table.

They clearly state that whoever destroyed those outposts was "more powerful than either of us" - which means that neither of them could have done that. But if they can destroy whole civilizations, why would the destruction of a small outpost be impossible to them?

You're being disingenuous. They were talking about the manner in which those outposts were destroyed. They weren't simply destroyed via conventional means, they were ripped out of the ground consistent with what the Borg did in system J-25 in 'QWho'.

Why do we never see massive orbital bombardments?

But we do. TDiC is one, which only lasts a few seconds before the fleet gets attacked by the Jem'Hadar. But only one example is needed to demonstrate that orbital bombardments can and do occur.

As I said before, the false sensor readings can apply to the report that '30% of the planet's surface was destroyed'. But that doesn't diminish their entire plan to destroy the crust in an hour's worth of bombardment. As I said, it's wrong to conclude they can do a third of the job in 1/60th the time they were expecting, but that doesn't mean you can conclude they are unable to accomplish the task they went to a lot of effort to do! The entire premise of the episode revolves around making a surprise attack on the Dominion's homeworld using massive orbital bombardment.

For example, look at the end of the Cardassian War - why did the Dominion only manage to destroy a single city, instead of the whole planets surface?

Lol - the Dominion punish Cardassia by killing 800 million people in a short span of time. What, did they do that hand-to-hand or something? The first city was a demonstration to the Cardassians to fall in line. When they heard that the Cardassian fleet had turned on them, the Founder ordered the planet to be exterminated. We even see a long camera shot of the devastation of Cardassia.

Unless you're seriously arguing they used nothing but hand weapons, which would be hilarious considering the kind of complaints relating to Trek hand weaponry being always weak.

Why are orbital bombardment never a concern when fighting against the Dominion, or against any other enemies?

Ah but it is. An Admiral raises concerns with Sisko's plan to retake DS9 by pointing out that drawing away fleet elements would leave Earth and other core systems vulnerable to attack. Incidentally the Breen do attack Earth but were driven off by a defending fleet.

If a single ship was capable of wiping everyone off the face of a planet within a few hours, that should be a major concern - yet it never is.

You're wrong. A single Klingon Vor'cha attack cruiser completely destroyed the biosphere of an M-class world in a brief span of time in 'The Chase'. This wasn't through firepower as such, but likely some kind of weapon that was deployed using a plasma chain reaction that wiped out all life. However, that's not the point - the point is even a single ship poses a threat.

Enterprise threatens to bombard a planet in 'A Taste of Armageddon' but we've already cited that example. In 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' Kirk orders his CMO Dr Piper to beam up to the ship with orders that if he doesn't return in 12 hours that the entire surface of Delta Vega be subjected to neutron radiation bombardment. In 'Broken Link' Garak tries to commandeer the Defiant's weapons in order to make a suicidal attack on the Founder's homeworld, citing the Defiant carries enough firepower to turn it into a smoking cinder. Naturally the writers didn't feel like quantifying Garak's poetic description of planetcide, however the point is that one ship can easily do tremendous damage to a planet in a short span of time. And though I'm loathe to cite it, the entire premise of the movie 'Nemesis' revolved around Shinzon aiming his one ship with its superdeathray at Earth.

Given that GO24 is only mentioned twice in TOS and never actually carried out, we can't conclude much from it.

Lol - you quoted out of context 'The Neutral Zone' which doesn't even prove anything, but when Scotty goes 'All cities and installations on Eminiar 7 have been located, identified, and fed into our fire control system. In 1 hour and 45 minutes, the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed.' you go we can't conclude anything from it? It's as clear as fucking crystal what their capabilities are. Oh, and here's a quote from 'The Neutral Zone' you neglected to include:

PICARD
Captain's log, supplemental. We
have arrived at the edge of the
Neutral Zone. We will now have
an opportunity to learn firsthand
what happened to our distant
outposts.

42 INT. MAIN BRIDGE

Data is at Science One.

DATA
There is nothing left of Outpost
Delta Zero-Five.

GEORDI
It must have been one hell of an
explosion.

DATA
Sensors indicate no evidence of
a conventional attack.

He turns to face Picard.

DATA
(continuing)
There is nothing left.

PICARD
Can you determine what happened?

OFF Picard's REACTION.

WORF
The outpost was not just
destroyed, it is as though some
great force just scooped it
off the face of the planet.

STAR TREK: "... Neutral... " - REV. 3/21/88 - ACT FOUR 44.

42 CONTINUED:

They continue scanning.

PICARD
Could it have been a natural
phenomenon?

DATA
Insufficient information.

They already knew it's not a conventional attack. The manner is atypical, so atypical that Picard even asks if it conforms with some sort of natural phenomenon.

The Die is Cast is inconclusive for similar reasons, and any firepower estimates from it are highly incompatible with other observed instances of firepower.

So I guess you're going to say Colonel Lovok was talking shit to Garak when he tells him (and us, the audience) that their entire plan was to destroy the crust in one hour and the mantle in five?

Have you even watched any of these shows or episodes you presume to quote from? Every point you make is so demonstrably wrong that I find it unfathomable unless you actually have never seen any of it.

[Serafina]

I listed 9 episodes where orbital bombardment was a threat just two pages ago in this thread, in response to Serafina! viewtopic.php?p=3417116#p3417116

The Warsie wall of ignorance is astounding.

Here we go again, with some details this time, to benefit those of us who haven't actually seen the show:

Except that the details you are now giving show that it's all about shooting something from orbit - NOT about massive orbital bombardment, which i was referring to (something that wipes out population centers and the like).
Only the first two of your examples actually refer to MOB, and they are only threats and never seen carried out.
"A Piece of the Action" only hits a single house block - not even remotely comparable to MOB.
"Balance of Terror" - it depends on how large these outposts are. If they are comparable to those we see, we are talking about a small city - not planet-wide destruction.
"Skin of Evil" - single-target bombardment. KT-firepower is not inconsistent with being visible from orbit.
"The Survivors" HOW massive? I didn't find any decent screenshots, and the Memory Alpha summary seems inconclusive. But apparently, the ship that did that was much stronger than the Enterprise, so it's not that useful for determining Federation capabilities in the first place.
"Time's Arrow" That episode involves a lot of time-technobabble, and i do not see how we can conclude anything about MOB about it.
"Unification" Wrong - it could as well be that Vulcan is an (nearly) unarmed planet with lot's of centralized infrastructure. In fact, that would make conquest MORE effective, since it would be hard to remove these ground-troops from that infrastructure - you would need to assault them, since you can't bombard it from orbit because you don't want to destroy it. Compare that to a ship which might be destroyed in ship-to-ship combat, my explanation fits the definition of "Conquest" much better.
"Gambit" - which is, again, only a single complex - NOT MOB.

This isn't an exhaustive list - it's just the ones that come to mind.

And as i said, none of them involve anything even remotely comparable to a Base Delta Zero or similar forms of massive orbital bombardment. We do not even see single large cities being destroyed by orbital bombardment.

And then we can go into DS9. The Die is Cast is certainly massive bombardment. "In the Pale Moonlight" describes Betazed as being invaded and conquered in a matter of hours (with one of the tie in novels describing most the damage done by orbital bombardment, according to the Star Trek wiki). That episode with Eddington vs Sisko, "For the Cause" IIRC, had Sisko depopulating planets from orbit with magic.

Tdic is very muddy due to the plot of that episode and the strange visual effects. It's also the ONLY instance where we see anything comparable to MOB, and it's inconsistent with a lot of other instances.
Conquering a planet of pacifists is not hard, it's likely that this was similar to the planet conquest of Vulcan (see above). Also, precision strikes are more useful for conquest than MOB, so you don't need to infer the later anyway.

The overwhelming power of starships is also a well established background fact in the universe. Starships control worlds and keep the peace consistently. How would that be so if they couldn't threaten them?

As i said twice now, that doesn't require MOB. It just requires the ability to hit certain strategic points - such as a centralized power grid. Or to damage population centers, which is enough of a threat to rule trough fear. It doesn't require the ability to destroy all life on a planet within a short timeframe.


There we go - a lengthy strawman by yourself (tough it may have been a genuine misunderstanding). I never said that Trek has no orbital bombardment as in "they can hit stuff from orbit". I DID say that they do not have orbital bombardment as in "devastate the surface of a planet, destroy most life or annihilate civilisations". The former is observed regulary, the latter is only observed in one contradictory instance and is otherwise utterly absent from Trek, even tough that capability should have a large influence on warfare.

[Picard]

Saxton is canon. Deal with it child. and no the bridge wasn't obliterated.

Saxton is not canon and yes bridge was obliterated. Watch movie, if you did not.

Even then, only direct quotes from it is canon.

And even then, only quotes which do not contradict higher canon.

We see that the captain is still there after the impact, and from the scene where we see him he recoils and points at something before vanishing.

You have any proof he was on bridge?

And then tell me whether you think the bridge was weak because it could not survive such an impact, or not.

No, I only think that "neutronium hull" theory/fallacy is just laughable.

So where do you get the max range for Star Wars weapons?

Hoth ion canon fired at ISD from 10 to 13 000 kilometers. Ship to ship range will be lower - plus, speed of TL bolt limits engagement range, and then we have ranges of ISD's vs MF. And if you want me to really take "direct quote" from canon - in ROTJ we know that Rebel cruiser "Freedom" "furiously fought in long range battle" (translation from Croatian). In movie, that "long-range batle" is 200 kilometers at most, probably gross overestimation.

They clearly state that whoever destroyed those outposts was "more powerful than either of us" - which means that neither of them could have done that. But if they can destroy whole civilizations, why would the destruction of a small outpost be impossible to them?

Maybe outposts were shielded? You know, outpost does not need lot of things starships need, which means more energy to weapons and shields.

Why did they have to send ground troops, rather than just doing it from orbit?

Maybe beacouse fleet was waiting for Federation forces? And would you bomb your own troops? Also, cardassia Prime might or might not have planetary shield.

Why are orbital bombardment never a concern when fighting against the Dominion, or against any other enemies? If a single ship was capable of wiping everyone off the face of a planet within a few hours, that should be a major concern - yet it never is.

Maybe beacouse of planetary shields? Beacouse we DO know from canon that single BoP can wipe out life on planet without any problem, to point no DNA is recoverable (althought that was chain reaction but it is irrelevant in this case - ordinary planetary bombardment probably would not destroy DNA, especially given size and relative power of said ship). Also, main problem with Cardassian "bioweapon delivery system" was not that it can transport microbes without needing delivery capsule, but rather that it can do it without targeted planet realizing what was happening (this example is from TNG episode "Chain of Command"). Answer: planetary shields. Plus, we have direct evidence from TOS.

[Serafina]

Saxton is not canon and yes bridge was obliterated. Watch movie, if you did not.

*Sigh* When will Trektards get this? The ICS II is C-canon, and so are the calculations published within. ONLY if you can show that G- or T-canon actually overrules it, then it is overwritten - but not actually removed from canon.
You have tried, you have failed - utterly.
Furthermore, the fate of the bridge is not clear, since it's obscured by the explosion.

You have any proof he was on bridge?

Gee, where is the captain of a ship likely to be?
But if he was NOT on the bridge, then why did he vanish? After all, we saw that the rest of the Star Destroyer was unharmed. (there is a simple answer to this, let's see if you can find it).

No, I only think that "neutronium hull" theory/fallacy is just laughable.

Calculations, moron. Have you calculated the kinetic energy and momentum of that impact?
By the way, high density does NOT necessarily translate into high material strength. Go back to high school chemistry. And we DO have a canon source that they use neutronium in their hulls. It's therefore neither a theory nor a fallacy (it's funny that you treat the two interchangable) - it's a fact. You can argue about the implications of that fact, of course - but further evidence still disagrees with you.

As expected, you ignore the part where i challenge you to do these calculations. Most likely because your tortured subconscious knows that those calculations won't agree with you.

Hoth ion canon fired at ISD from 10 to 13 000 kilometers. Ship to ship range will be lower - plus, speed of TL bolt limits engagement range, and then we have ranges of ISD's vs MF. And if you want me to really take "direct quote" from canon - in ROTJ we know that Rebel cruiser "Freedom" "furiously fought in long range battle" (translation from Croatian). In movie, that "long-range batle" is 200 kilometers at most, probably gross overestimation.

So, if you are standing in front of me (2 meters away) and i shoot you with a rifle, what we conclude about the range of the rifle from that?
Go read up on lower limits, idiot.

Maybe outposts were shielded? You know, outpost does not need lot of things starships need, which means more energy to weapons and shields.

Or maybe less power generation equipment. Which makes sense, given that such equipment requires maintenance, fuel and money.

Maybe beacouse fleet was waiting for Federation forces? And would you bomb your own troops? Also, cardassia Prime might or might not have planetary shield.

Planetary shields we never saw. Nice one, retard. Even if they had them, how about this: disable them, beam your troops away, obliterate the planet with the whole fleet which is in orbit anyway?

[Junghalli]

Regarding "General Order 24":
How about "The Neutral Zone", where they are surprised by the destruction of a couple of outposts and think that whoever did this was more powerful than them:

Are these outposts quantified at all? I watched that episode and I don't remember it. They could have been shielded, or buried under kilometers of rock.

At any rate it's fairly obvious from that bit of script Stofsk posted that the noteworthy thing was that they were scooped clean off the planet, not that somebody blew them up, but Stofsk already covered that.

[Picard]

Planetary shields we never saw.

But we do hear about them, and many things in Star Trek can be explained only by planetary shields.

Even if they had them, how about this: disable them, beam your troops away, obliterate the planet with the whole fleet which is in orbit anyway?

Alliance fleet was on way. If Cardassia had shield, how long it would take for Dominion fleet to breach it?

So, if you are standing in front of me (2 meters away) and i shoot you with a rifle, what we conclude about the range of the rifle from that?
Go read up on lower limits, idiot.

...long range battle... ...lower limits... Am I only one here who sees discrepancy?

As expected, you ignore the part where i challenge you to do these calculations. Most likely because your tortured subconscious knows that those calculations won't agree with you.

You want result? ISD's tower was totally obliterated by terajoule-range impact.

You have tried, you have failed - utterly.

Only in your warped mind. You don't change your ideas about SW firepower according to facts, you warp facts to fit ICS.

Furthermore, the fate of the bridge is not clear, since it's obscured by the explosion.

Obscured?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_10H8_Gaw0N0/T ... e+copy.gif

Riight.

[Picard]

Go read up on lower limits, idiot.

And what about 200 km "long-range battle"? That is lower limit too?

[Batman]

Planetary shields we never saw.

But we do hear about them,

You no doubt have the quote handy.

and many things in Star Trek can be explained only by planetary shields.

I'm waiting with bated breath.

So, if you are standing in front of me (2 meters away) and i shoot you with a rifle, what we conclude about the range of the rifle from that?
Go read up on lower limits, idiot.

...long range battle... ...lower limits... Am I only one here who sees discrepancy?

Yes?

As expected, you ignore the part where i challenge you to do these calculations. Most likely because your tortured subconscious knows that those calculations won't agree with you.

You want result? ISD's tower was totally obliterated by terajoule-range impact.

As evidenced by nothing whatsoever, as usual for you.

You have tried, you have failed - utterly.

Only in your warped mind. You don't change your ideas about SW firepower according to facts, you warp facts to fit ICS.

Bwa. Bwaha. Bwahahah. There's somebody warping facts here but it sure as hell isn't Serafina.

Furthermore, the fate of the bridge is not clear, since it's obscured by the explosion.

Obscured?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_10H8_Gaw0N0/T ... e+copy.gif
Riight.

I finally get it. You like torpedoing your own point. You do know that picture completely fails to show a bridge-less Star Destroyer, right?

[Kythnos]

And what about 200 km "long-range battle"? That is lower limit too?

I still can't believe you are this dense, that you do not under stand the difference between "range" and "chance to hit".
But in case you are missing it I will try to explain it:

Star Wars DBY-827 turbolaser has a range of 10 light minutes. At that range, never listed as a maximum range by the way. The only thing it could hit is a stationary target such as a building or a ship in orbit provided it did not change speed or heading during the 10 minutes of travel time for the weapon. (I don't have the math I did not the subject but in case you really need it I will look for it.) If the target ship changes either course or speed by 1% with only a minute of travel time left (9 minutes after the shot has been fired) the shot will miss (lasers can't track a target nor change course after they have been fired). That should be easy for you to see, this of course applies for both Star Wars and Star Trek.
Now for the real nightmare for targeting
In universes where inertia is everyone's bitch and factoring in ship that can move at 1% of c, or greater, that is 180 miles in ONE second or more. If your weapon has to travel longer than a second you will more than likely miss, point of fact the shorter the better.

Now why is it you ignore "canon statement from Star Wars if thought there are no visuals to back them up" yet have the nerve to demand we accept the "canon statements from Star Trek without visuals to back them up"?

[Serafina]

But we do hear about them, and many things in Star Trek can be explained only by planetary shields.

Present them. We only have one instance of a shield ON a planet, not a shield that SURROUNDS a planet.
By that definition, Hoth had a planetary shield, too.

Alliance fleet was on way. If Cardassia had shield, how long it would take for Dominion fleet to breach it?

They already had troops on the ground. Send them to the shield generator, disable it, target a couple of cities with extreme prejudice. You get far more shock&awe out of that, and you risk less of your troops.

...long range battle... ...lower limits... Am I only one here who sees discrepancy?

Apparently, yes. Nothing about the battle of Hoth indicated that it was an unusually long range.
To give you an example your dumb little brains can actually understand:
I am shooting a cruise missile at a target 100 km away. That's definetly "long range". Can i therefore conclude the cruise missiles maximum range?

And what about 200 km "long-range battle"? That is lower limit too?

Just because they call it "long range" it doesn't have to be anywhere near the edge of their engagement range. In my example above, you can easily call the cruise-missile attack "long range", even tough it could go up to 25 times that range.

You want result? ISD's tower was totally obliterated by terajoule-range impact.

And you don't get why i want calculations.
IF the asteroid only had a few kilotons of kinetic energy and a low momentum, then you can conclude that SW-ships have weak armor on their bridges. But if it had more kinetic energy and/or very high momentum, then you CAN'T necessarily conclude that. In fact, regardless of the result, you can only conclude something about the bridge towers resistance to physical impacts, not about the armor on the rest of the ship. That tower has windows, for fucks sake.
Kinetic impacts are not necessarily comparable to energy weapons, and ST has NO kinetic weapons at all.
You are just childishly going "an asteroid destroyed it, so it must be weak", without actually knowing how powerful that asteroid was. That's why i want to see your calculations.

[Picard]

Present them. We only have one instance of a shield ON a planet, not a shield that SURROUNDS a planet.
By that definition, Hoth had a planetary shield, too.

I already explained that. At absolute bent-backwards minimum, ST weapons are in kiloton-megaton range. Yet Breen attack on San Francisco caused only "light damage". "Year of Hell part 2" suggests that even relatively primitive civilizations have them. Then we have planetary shield in "Whom Gods Destroy". Also, watch episode "The Chase". Single BoP can completely eradicate life on entire planet via chain-reaction - if only single shot lands, you're dead.

I'm sorry, but simply wishing that Star Trek doesn't have planetary shields won't erase all evidence we have. About Star Wars, only time we have conclusive evidence of planetary shields was RotS novelization, but question is - if there are shields, and these shields stop ships, how Anakin & Co. landed? Only explanation I can think of are DSI-type shields, that do not stop physical impacts.

They already had troops on the ground. Send them to the shield generator, disable it, target a couple of cities with extreme prejudice. You get far more shock&awe out of that, and you risk less of your troops.

And risk loosing planet and battle to Federation.

Nothing about the battle of Hoth indicated that it was an unusually long range.

Not unusually long-range, but still long-range. Even if SW weapon ranges were measured in light seconds, it would still be extreme short-range battle.

Just because they call it "long range" it doesn't have to be anywhere near the edge of their engagement range. In my example above, you can easily call the cruise-missile attack "long range", even tough it could go up to 25 times that range.

Maybe, but at speed of TL bolts (5-10 km/s) time bolt needs to cover supposed 10 light minutes range is 208 days, or little less than 7 months. Not very practical, eh?

And you don't get why i want calculations.
IF the asteroid only had a few kilotons of kinetic energy and a low momentum, then you can conclude that SW-ships have weak armor on their bridges. But if it had more kinetic energy and/or very high momentum, then you CAN'T necessarily conclude that. In fact, regardless of the result, you can only conclude something about the bridge towers resistance to physical impacts, not about the armor on the rest of the ship. That tower has windows, for fucks sake.
Kinetic impacts are not necessarily comparable to energy weapons, and ST has NO kinetic weapons at all.
You are just childishly going "an asteroid destroyed it, so it must be weak", without actually knowing how powerful that asteroid was. That's why i want to see your calculations.

I calculated energy at 27.5 to 96.6 TJ.
http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/10/t ... scene.html

[Picard]

then you can conclude that SW-ships have weak armor on their bridges

Or better said-no neutronium hulls. BTW, Star Wars "neutronium" is mined from moons.

[Serafina]

I already explained that. At absolute bent-backwards minimum, ST weapons are in kiloton-megaton range. Yet Breen attack on San Francisco caused only "light damage". "Year of Hell part 2" suggests that even relatively primitive civilizations have them. Then we have planetary shield in "Whom Gods Destroy". Also, watch episode "The Chase". Single BoP can completely eradicate life on entire planet via chain-reaction - if only single shot lands, you're dead.

You are a moron. Neither of those require a full planetary shield. If you can't grasp the difference between a shield bubble covering a city or one covering the whole planet including it's atmosphere - well, i already said that you are a moron.

I'm sorry, but simply wishing that Star Trek doesn't have planetary shields won't erase all evidence we have. About Star Wars, only time we have conclusive evidence of planetary shields was RotS novelization, but question is - if there are shields, and these shields stop ships, how Anakin & Co. landed? Only explanation I can think of are DSI-type shields, that do not stop physical impacts.

Simply wishing that the shields bubbles we observe are comparable to SW-planetary shields won't make it so either.
And we have plenty more evidence than just the RotS-novelization: ANH movie and novel, multiple EU-novels, RotJ movie and book, AotC ICS.
As for Coruscants planetary shield: given that Corsucant has massive space traffic, they obviously don't have their shields up all the time. A planetary shield that won't stop ships from flying under it is pretty damn worthless, so they have to lower their shields in order to let that traffic pass. The Seperatists made a surprise attack and quickly flew below that shield - it was still raised, that's mentioned in the novel, but the ships were already inside the shield.
Then again, that you can't think of an explanation that makes perfect sense and that is mentioned in canon is no surprise, because it would require thinking or reading.

And risk loosing planet and battle to Federation.

How so? Oh, right - you think they cant just hit the "off-switch" on the shield generator, that they have to blow it up. They already destroyed one city, they obviously didn't care for it.
Besides - why didn't they use that planetary shield? When you are assaulting an important enemy planet, don't you think the fact that it has heavy fortifications could be somewhat relevant?

Not unusually long-range, but still long-range. Even if SW weapon ranges were measured in light seconds, it would still be extreme short-range battle.

Didn't you read my example with the cruise missile?
Besides - where in canon does it say that it is a long-range attack? YOU are calling it that - does anyone in-universe do it?

Maybe, but at speed of TL bolts (5-10 km/s) time bolt needs to cover supposed 10 light minutes range is 208 days, or little less than 7 months. Not very practical, eh?

Which just indicates that the damaging part of the turbolaser is way faster than the tracer which we actually observe, which is backed up by canon.

I calculated energy at 27.5 to 96.6 TJ.

Heey, good boy.
Now explain how you can derive it's vulnerability to energy weapons based on a purely kinetic impact. Or how you can derive the resilience of SW-armor based on that. Because that was the crucial point all along: Only trektards and morons do not get the difference between a pure KE-impact and something that works on thermal energy instead.