StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login  FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-04-17 06:04am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Fiction » Science Fiction » Star Wars vs Star Trek


Quote of the Week: "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." - Alexis de Tocqueville, French writer (1805-1859)

Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Planets

Moderator: Vympel

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 2 of 4
 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:13pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 4653
Location: Bound in a nutshell
So....you're taking dialogue and hyperbole at face value? Yup, thought so.

Quote:
A defiant class ship has the capability to destroy a planet, a typical star destroyer cannot. In A New Hope, there is speculation the empire destroyed Alderaan.

Kenobi: Destroyed by the empire
Solo: The entire Starfleet couldn’t destroy the whole planet. It would take a thousand ships with more firepower than a hy---


Speculation? They DID blow the damn thing up. We SAW them do it. Kenobi wasn't speculating, he was drawing a conclusion based on what he had felt and seen.

Han is disagreeing because he has never seen/heard of such a thing before, and possibly out of an instinctive response. Like Luke's "No, that's impossible" when he learsn the truth about Vader being his father. It's a gut-reaction.

On the ST side, we have NEVER seen them (the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, et al) outright destroy a planet. We see S8472 do it, and we see the Planet Killer do it (or rather, we see the results). The Federation does not have the capacity to destroy planets.
   Profile |  

Danny
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:15pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2011-08-24 01:25am
Posts: 44
Location: Florida
Quote:
And yet in the episode "Loud as a Whisper" Picard refuses to bring his ship into a warzone where the combatants are firing lasers until the ceasefire is reestablished because he doesn't want to endanger the Enterprise. In "Conundrum" the Enterprise has to raise its shields to full power to resist the pulse lasers of the Lyssians instead of simply relying on their navigational shields. And the script for "Q Who?" notes that the borg cutting beam is a laser

In the episode Loud as a Whisper, Picard does not want to engage both sides in a war, regardless if they are weak. Picard numerous of times did want to engage foes who were militarily weaker. He also did not want to put the crew in any danger of being shot at when they beamed down. Lasers were still a threat to a human body. In Conundrum, The Enterprise was NEVER in real danger. In the episode, the crew was manipulated and tricked into thinking the Lyssians have been a mortal enemy to the federation for years. Their orders were to destroy a Lyssian HQ. They enterpered into range, and standard procedure- raised shields to full power when encountering an enemy. When the Enteprise did a full scan, Riker surmized: "1 photon torpedo ought to do the trick". This is when they realized though the station was massive- was too weak. It was also armed with 4 laser canons.

In your Q who comment, I do have to concede acknowledgement that in that instance, a laser was a dangerous. However you must also understand that the Borg ship's tractor beam weakened the Enterprise shields until it was all but drained. Then the Borg utilized the cutting beam. Then again, Borg tech has always been far superior in every instance to species except 8472.
   Profile |  

Danny
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:21pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2011-08-24 01:25am
Posts: 44
Location: Florida
Quote:
Speculation? They DID blow the damn thing up. We SAW them do it. Kenobi wasn't speculating, he was drawing a conclusion based on what he had felt and seen.

Han is disagreeing because he has never seen/heard of such a thing before, and possibly out of an instinctive response. Like Luke's "No, that's impossible" when he learsn the truth about Vader being his father. It's a gut-reaction.

On the ST side, we have NEVER seen them (the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, et al) outright destroy a planet. We see S8472 do it, and we see the Planet Killer do it (or rather, we see the results). The Federation does not have the capacity to destroy planets.


A DEATH STAR blew up the planet, not a Imperial class 2 star destroyer. I was mentioning to that person a SD, not a DS. In ST we have seen ships mangle a planets crust that would eventually destroy a planet, as i have mentioned in my episode guide. Most warships in the ST universe can destroy planets, but as you stated- we have not actually seen it. Thats why we use power of deduction- a couple of hits on a planets surface causes extensive damage to a planets crust, we can conclude they do posses the tech to destroy a planet if they continued with their planetary bombardment. Plus even IF they couldnt destroy a planet, there have been several instances they launch bio-chemical warheads to a planets surface that would make all inhabitants die. Star Wars also posseses this tech.
   Profile |  

StarSword
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:24pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-07-22 10:46pm
Posts: 971
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
@Danny: As a response to all reference to "isotons": that is a meaningless unit made up by the ST writers, so it can't be used to judge anything. In fact, according to a list of metric prefixes, "iso-" means x to the power 1, which is x. So, 1 isoton = 1 ton. FAIL.

As a response to all references to ST ships tearing planets apart: most can be put down to hyperbole on the part of the speaker. ("What's she gonna do, destroy a small planet?" Obvious hyperbole.) FAIL.

An incident you cite from DS9, where they say they have melted 30% of a planet's crust, visual evidence directly contradicts this: 30% of the surface = 60% of the visible side of the planet. Was not observed, so it did not happen. FAIL.

In DS9: "Broken Link", the Defiant depopulating the Changeling homeworld does not require destroying the planet itself, as you claimed. FAIL.

Han Solo's line in ANH does not refer to a Base Delta Zero, a military operation that single ISDs are canonically capable of, consisting of destroying every usable resource and structure on the planet's surface, but rather to what happened to Alderaan: namely, the planet exploding. Also, said line is susceptible to a hyperbole argument as Eternal_Freedom noted. FAIL.

You cite tricobalt and gravimetric torpedoes as being able to destroy the Death Star. I have never heard of a gravimetric torpedo, but as far as I know the only instance where tricobalt torpedoes were used in combat was in VOY: "Caretaker" when the Voyager destroyed the Caretaker's Array with a pair of them. The Caretaker's array is a spindly space station estimated at 4 km in diameter. The Death Star is a spherical space station 160 km in diameter. FAIL.

And before you try transphasic torpedoes, all we know about them is that they can one-shot a Borg cube, which raw firepower estimates indicate an ISD is already capable of. FAIL.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:34pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 4653
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Danny wrote:
A DEATH STAR blew up the planet, not a Imperial class 2 star destroyer. I was mentioning to that person a SD, not a DS.


You said there was speculation THE EMPIRE destroyed Alderaan. No specific ship type mentioned. Fail.

Quote:
In ST we have seen ships mangle a planets crust that would eventually destroy a planet, as i have mentioned in my episode guide. Most warships in the ST universe can destroy planets, but as you stated- we have not actually seen it. Thats why we use power of deduction- a couple of hits on a planets surface causes extensive damage to a planets crust, we can conclude they do posses the tech to destroy a planet if they continued with their planetary bombardment.


We do not SEE that ST ships can cause extensive damage to the crust with a few hits, and visuals trump dialogue.

TDiC is already suspect as the Founder's planet was clearly not rendered as uninhabitable as the stated destruction would suggest, because Kira could survive there without any life-support equipment during the DS9 finale.

ST ships could, with an extensive bomardment, kill everything on a planet. That's pretty bad. But that does not equate to "destroy a planet with a single ship." Everyone dead != planet destroyed.

You talk about power of deduction. Go and learn some goddamn logic, please!
   Profile |  

StarSword
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:38pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-07-22 10:46pm
Posts: 971
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Oh, and while I'm talking about torpedoes, the reason they worked on the Death Star is because they triggered a chain reaction in the reactor system, which made the station destroy itself. To do this, they had to execute a 72,000-g turn to enter a reactor shaft two meters wide. ST weaponry has never exhibited this level of maneuverability or guidance precision. I'm not even sure they've ever exhibited any form of guidance at all. FAIL.
   Profile |  

Batman
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:56pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Posts: 13159
Location: Looking for another drawer
The modified torpedo being guided was a moderately important plot element in TUC you know :wink: but yeah, photorps visibly acting like homing weapon is pretty rare (I think D13 mentioned a TNG episode where they also did last time I brought this up and I think it happened a few times in DS9, but don't ask me for specifics).
   Profile |  

Danny
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:56pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2011-08-24 01:25am
Posts: 44
Location: Florida
Quote:
@Danny: As a response to all reference to "isotons": that is a meaningless unit made up by the ST writers, so it can't be used to judge anything. In fact, according to a list of metric prefixes, "iso-" means x to the power 1, which is x. So, 1 isoton = 1 ton. FAIL.

As a response to all references to ST ships tearing planets apart: most can be put down to hyperbole on the part of the speaker. ("What's she gonna do, destroy a small planet?" Obvious hyperbole.) FAIL.

An incident you cite from DS9, where they say they have melted 30% of a planet's crust, visual evidence directly contradicts this: 30% of the surface = 60% of the visible side of the planet. Was not observed, so it did not happen. FAIL.

In DS9: "Broken Link", the Defiant depopulating the Changeling homeworld does not require destroying the planet itself, as you claimed. FAIL.

Han Solo's line in ANH does not refer to a Base Delta Zero, a military operation that single ISDs are canonically capable of, consisting of destroying every usable resource and structure on the planet's surface, but rather to what happened to Alderaan: namely, the planet exploding. Also, said line is susceptible to a hyperbole argument as Eternal_Freedom noted. FAIL.

You cite tricobalt and gravimetric torpedoes as being able to destroy the Death Star. I have never heard of a gravimetric torpedo, but as far as I know the only instance where tricobalt torpedoes were used in combat was in VOY: "Caretaker" when the Voyager destroyed the Caretaker's Array with a pair of them. The Caretaker's array is a spindly space station estimated at 4 km in diameter. The Death Star is a spherical space station 160 km in diameter. FAIL.

And before you try transphasic torpedoes, all we know about them is that they can one-shot a Borg cube, which raw firepower estimates indicate an ISD is already capable of. FAIL.


“Was not observed but did not happen”. FAIL

Gee man than 100% of all star wars storylines, plots and ships not ‘visually observed’ through television aren’t true.

“In DS9: "Broken Link", the Defiant depopulating the Changeling homeworld does not require destroying the planet itself, as you claimed. FAIL.”

I did say ‘smoldering ruin’ which does not in any mean it would destroy a planet. Then again- you destroy the surface of a planet that would wipe out all of the inhabitants of the planet, you do not need to destroy the planet perse. You already did your job. Plus I could mention the genesis device, but I rather not.

“Han Solo's line in ANH does not refer to a Base Delta Zero, a military operation that single ISDs are canonically capable of, consisting of destroying every usable resource and structure on the planet's surface, but rather to what happened to Alderaan: namely, the planet exploding. Also, said line is susceptible to a hyperbole argument as Eternal_Freedom noted. FAIL”

Problem is though- BDZ was never visually observed was it? Therefore in YOUR argument, it did not happen. Even if BDZ could have happened, in the novels BDZ NEVER destroyed an entire planet. It pulverized the surface till there was nothing left ontop, that’s it. No mention of it destroying a planet like a Death Star can.

“I have never heard of a gravimetric torpedo”
Utilized by the borg, used later on by the federation when Voyager reached earth, and Seven of Nine debriefed the tech to Starfleet.
“tricobalt torpedoes were used in combat was in VOY: "Caretaker" when the Voyager destroyed the Caretaker's Array with a pair of them. The Caretaker's array is a spindly space station estimated at 4 km in diameter. The Death Star is a spherical space station 160 km in diameter. FAIL.”
Tricobalt torpedoes [seen in caretaker and star trek armada] have high explosive yields. A pair obliterated the station leaving nothing but dust. It was surmounted by Seven of Nine that the yield “20 tetracochranes’ as simply overkill, and Tuvok programmed it too high for such a small station. In the episode Blaze of Glory, the federation was worried the maquis launched a few tri cobalt missiles that would cause severe damage to Cardassia Prime. Not to mention the friggin things can rupture subspace. They can cause significant damage to cities, populations…just like a BDZ.
And your transphasic torpedo- thanks for mentioning because I forgot all about them. “which raw firepower estimates indicate an ISD is already capable of”. What gives a transphasic torpedo its strength is its FOCUSED power into a single source. I can tear apart your quote here, but I will just be basic. Raw firepower? Guestimation is not real estimation. Even I admit star trek has a lot of continuity/scientific flaws, just like star wars.
   Profile |  

Stofsk
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 04:58pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2003-11-10 01:36am
Posts: 12924
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Eternal_Freedom wrote:
We do not SEE that ST ships can cause extensive damage to the crust with a few hits, and visuals trump dialogue.

But we only see those visuals for a few seconds. I don't see how that trumps dialogue outright. I'd also disagree that we don't see extensive damage. As much damage as was stated? Perhaps not, but only a section of the planet was visible on the viewscreen, while the fleet could have been hitting from multiple vectors. In effect, what you're doing is taking one piece of evidence and conflating it, while treating what should be corroborating evidence i.e. the dialogue from the Romulan officer reporting to Tain, and dismissing it. Leaving aside this debate for a moment, I'd say this isn't the right way to approach analysis- we should strive always to gel dialogue and visuals together rather than assume all the time that visuals trump dialogue (because then you get people from the other side who do the same thing only dialogue>visuals, because 'that's what the authors intended'. I mean I could say that the visuals are what the sfx guys intended but they're not the ones who write the script are they? Or I could say that the vfx guys fucked up, so why should we take the visuals over the dialogue?)

Anyway I think you guys (BOTH sides) need to let this go- the OP has said, and repeated this at the end of the previous page, leaving aside all other concerns about firepower, for the moment we will run with the high-end figures for Wars (i.e. multi-gigatons as per the ICS) and what is generally accepted for Trek (i.e. multi-megatons). Arguing about firepower and tech dispairty is an off-topic hijack.

Quote:
TDiC is already suspect as the Founder's planet was clearly not rendered as uninhabitable as the stated destruction would suggest, because Kira could survive there without any life-support equipment during the DS9 finale.

Just a quick one on this, the Founders relocated their home to another planet which was kept secret after the events of TDiC. This was revealed in 'Broken Link', the season four finale.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:04pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 4653
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Did they? I haven't seen al of DS9, so I'll concede that.

If we're going with high-end SW numbers, Trek falls hard. There is no way around that.
   Profile |  

Danny
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:10pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2011-08-24 01:25am
Posts: 44
Location: Florida
Quote:
We do not SEE that ST ships can cause extensive damage to the crust with a few hits, and visuals trump dialogue.

TDiC is already suspect as the Founder's planet was clearly not rendered as uninhabitable as the stated destruction would suggest, because Kira could survive there without any life-support equipment during the DS9 finale.

ST ships could, with an extensive bomardment, kill everything on a planet. That's pretty bad. But that does not equate to "destroy a planet with a single ship." Everyone dead != planet destroyed.

You talk about power of deduction. Go and learn some goddamn logic, please!


"We do not SEE that ST ships can cause extensive damage to the crust with a few hits, and visuals trump dialogue"

So let me guess- you are a star wars fan, and occassionaly watch star trek, but havent actually seen all the series and their episodes? I already mentioned to you like 3 episodes where you DID VISUALLY SEE a ship causing damage and many more episodes i could mention, but that would take forever.

"ST ships could, with an extensive bomardment, kill everything on a planet. That's pretty bad. But that does not equate to "destroy a planet with a single ship." Everyone dead != planet destroyed"

If a ship can pierce through a planets crust into its core, causing massive shifting [earthquakes] to a planet which can cause it to be shaken apart and destroyed- then yes its capability as a planet killer is decisive. "Where can a ST ship do that"? TNG Inheritance, where a ship's phasers can reach a planets core, as well as other episodes.

"visuals trump dialogue"

Since im also a SW fan, im confused by this statement, since alot of nooks and crannies i know of star wars were not seen but spoken of. If dialogue is meanlingless, then alot of SW did not happen. What you should say is that sci fi dialogue is all made up and mistakes are made. One ship can destroy a seemingly powerful planet but not a little asteroid. It makes no sense since the writers are pulling things about their arses, but thats sci fi for you.

"You talk about power of deduction. Go and learn some goddamn logic, please![/quote]"

Logic in a sci fi series made in the 80's and 90s? You just lost all common sense.
   Profile |  

Danny
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:13pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2011-08-24 01:25am
Posts: 44
Location: Florida
Quote:
Did they? I haven't seen al of DS9, so I'll concede that.

If we're going with high-end SW numbers, Trek falls hard. There is no way around that.


Dude- its sci fi. Its not exact science LOL. I already admitted SW would win just by the sheer size of the empire's fleet and hyperdrive. Though i am a fan of both, I would say that when the empire won- they would lose a sizeable amount of resources in doing so.
   Profile |  

Stofsk
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:14pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2003-11-10 01:36am
Posts: 12924
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Christ, can you let it go? This thread isn't about firepower calc validity from either side, it's a specific scenario that puts a brilliant/genius level fleet commander at a massive disadvantage against a merely competent level opponent with a huge advantage. It's about whether an asymmetrical campaign could work if planned properly (and Thrawn has a decade in which to do so).
   Profile |  

Generalissimo
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:15pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2011-08-23 11:35am
Posts: 26
Stofsk wrote:
Christ, can you let it go? This thread isn't about firepower calc validity from either side, it's a specific scenario that puts a brilliant/genius level fleet commander at a massive disadvantage against a merely competent level opponent with a huge advantage. It's about whether an asymmetrical campaign could work if planned properly (and Thrawn has a decade in which to do so).
That's for bringing it back on topic Stofsk!
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:24pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23841
Given that the ship Daala's fleet is based on is the Chimaera aka Thrawn's old flagship, there is no reason why the two fleets should even fight. If there are any loyalist crew members they will just as well defect to Thrawn, especially since he offers far more than Daala could in such a scenario. Alternatively, Thrawn may very well know how to manipulate the Chimaera's computers or something.

As to the rest, an asymmetrical campaign might work, but there is no way the UFP will ever consent to such a campaign due to the scale of slaughter. There is no way for Thrawn to take any of the ships out in a standup fight.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:28pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 4653
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Trouble is, Thrawn has a decade to think things up but only a week to put things into place.

Given the enormous disparity in technology, I just don't see how even a brilliantly successful geurilla campaign can expel the Maw Fleet.

The objective is to invade the Federation. I think it's a reasonable assumption that "conquer" can be substituted for "invade" here, so I'll procede on that assumption.

The Maw Fleet can sit outside the Federation quietly, perhaps ambushing and capturing the odd freighter or explorer for informationor star maps. Once Earth and other important worlds are located, jump to Earth.

Destroy any ship in orbit. Call the Federation Council and demand their surrender, or the fleet starts blowing up cities. (Yup, it's Mike's Imperial Strategy for the Battle of Bajor. But it works.)

Now Thrawn will be in one of a few places:

1. Starfleet Command, so he can verify that Daala is quite willing and capable of carrying out the threat (we saw her attack civilians at Mon Calamari, and only Ackbar's suicide use of a half-built Mon Cal cruiser stopped her). In this case, I don't see how Thrawn would be able to persuade them to fight on, especially after a city gets blasted

2. At a base/ship/planet elsewhere in the Federation, where he can't tell the Federation leaders anything but is in a position to fight on after Earth falls.

3. Aboard a ship around Earth, in which case he will probably die when his ship gets blasted.

Option 2 presents the most interesting result. Thrawn can rally fleet elements to his banner after Earth surrenders/is levelled. But I think he'll have trouble getting public opion on his side, especially if Daala threatens to destroy more core worlds if the Federation continue to resist.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:32pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23841
Eternal_Freedom wrote:
Trouble is, Thrawn has a decade to think things up but only a week to put things into place.

Given the enormous disparity in technology, I just don't see how even a brilliantly successful geurilla campaign can expel the Maw Fleet.


Daala is an utter idiot who is incapable of waiting until she has enough intel/forces to do anything. Her entire campaign consisted of one idiotic decision after another.

Besides, Thrawn still outranks her. The campaign is going to be a short one.
"This is Grand Admiral Thrawn. My authorisation code is XX. I order Admiral Daala to be removed from command and will now take command myself."

You really want to bet that Imperial forces, especially the Chimaera crew, will follow Daala over Thrawn?

Quote:
Option 2 presents the most interesting result. Thrawn can rally fleet elements to his banner after Earth surrenders/is levelled. But I think he'll have trouble getting public opion on his side, especially if Daala threatens to destroy more core worlds if the Federation continue to resist.


Your other options were pretty much nonsensical so it is definitely option 2. However, again, the loyalty of the fleet to Daala is not really something I would bet on. Thrawn still outranks her and could simply order the attack to be stopped.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:39pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 4653
Location: Bound in a nutshell
That's a bit of an anti-climax. But fair enough. I considered that, as the whole point of this thread was to see if Thrawn's military wizardry can overcome the enormous odds against him, a conflict was implied.
   Profile |  

The Romulan Republic
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:41pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Posts: 3786
Location: Victoria, Canada
Thanas wrote:
Given that the ship Daala's fleet is based on is the Chimaera aka Thrawn's old flagship, there is no reason why the two fleets should even fight. If there are any loyalist crew members they will just as well defect to Thrawn, especially since he offers far more than Daala could in such a scenario. Alternatively, Thrawn may very well know how to manipulate the Chimaera's computers or something.


Excellent point. So, Thrawn's old friends on the Chimaera stage a mutiny and join him, perhaps supported by some hacking from Thrawn. Thrawn wins.

Quote:
As to the rest, an asymmetrical campaign might work, but there is no way the UFP will ever consent to such a campaign due to the scale of slaughter. There is no way for Thrawn to take any of the ships out in a standup fight.


The idea that the Federation are pussies who will surrender at the first sign of heavy casualties is an exaggeration of TNG's pacifist ideals that's not really supported by canon. Didn't Deep Space 9 predict 900 billion casualties in the Dominion War before the Federation surrendered? Yeah, the Federation will surrender the first time a world gets bombarded. :roll:

Frankly, even if the Federation government surrendered, there are elements that would ignore such a surrender. Some of the Starfleet officers, almost certainly, and probably most people who used to be in the Bajoran resistance. Fighting a massively superior foe with little regard for civilian deaths is business as usual to them.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:46pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23841
The Romulan Republic wrote:
The idea that the Federation are pussies who will surrender at the first sign of heavy casualties is an exaggeration of TNG's pacifist ideals that's not really supported by canon. Didn't Deep Space 9 predict 900 billion casualties in the Dominion War before the Federation surrendered? Yeah, the Federation will surrender the first time a world gets bombarded. :roll:


Bad Argument. With Daala being able to completely destroy every federation world in a few days and there is nothing anybody can do against that this scale is a completely different one. If the Federation would win such a war it would be worse than the Dark Ages simply because there will be no civilization as such that still exists.

Quote:
Frankly, even if the Federation government surrendered, there are elements that would ignore such a surrender. Some of the Starfleet officers, almost certainly, and probably most people who used to be in the Bajoran resistance. Fighting a massively superior foe with little regard for civilian deaths is business as usual to them.


Yes, which is why those would probably be the ones Thrawn would rely on. But not even the Japanese fought on after having a mere two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs. Are you honestly saying the Federation is more cynical and has less regard for civilian life than the Japanese Empire?
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 05:48pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 4653
Location: Bound in a nutshell
There's a difference between a predicted 900 billion death toll, that's predicted by people you inherently do not trust, and actually suffering those losses as core worlds like Earth, Vulcan and Andor are levelled.
   Profile |  

StarSword
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 06:00pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-07-22 10:46pm
Posts: 971
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
At y'all's request, I'm taking the mini-debate with Danny to PMs.

Batman wrote:
The modified torpedo being guided was a moderately important plot element in TUC you know :wink: but yeah, photorps visibly acting like homing weapon is pretty rare (I think D13 mentioned a TNG episode where they also did last time I brought this up and I think it happened a few times in DS9, but don't ask me for specifics).

I've only seen movies 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11, so I wasn't aware of this incident. I'll defer to your expertise here.

I am personally aware of Kirk using a self-guided torp against a D7 in the book Federation, but that ain't canon.

Thanas wrote:
Yes, which is why those would probably be the ones Thrawn would rely on. But not even the Japanese fought on after having a mere two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs. Are you honestly saying the Federation is more cynical and has less regard for civilian life than the Japanese Empire?

They leave civilians aboard starships during combat, don't they? Just saying.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 06:04pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23841
StarSword wrote:
They leave civilians aboard starships during combat, don't they? Just saying.


This is not an attempt at a serious argument, right?
   Profile |  

The Romulan Republic
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 06:06pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Posts: 3786
Location: Victoria, Canada
Thanas wrote:
Bad Argument. With Daala being able to completely destroy every federation world in a few days and there is nothing anybody can do against that this scale is a completely different one. If the Federation would win such a war it would be worse than the Dark Ages simply because there will be no civilization as such that still exists.


The Federation has officers with enough balls to defy Q (or punch him in the face). Courage and determination in the face of impossible odds are almost a defining characteristic of Starfleet.

Quote:
Yes, which is why those would probably be the ones Thrawn would rely on. But not even the Japanese fought on after having a mere two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs. Are you honestly saying the Federation is more cynical and has less regard for civilian life than the Japanese Empire?


I'm merely noting that according to canon they are apparently willing to suffer 900 billion casualties. Ie, over 100 times the population of the entire Earth today. If you take issue with that, your complaint is with the DS9 writers, not me.

Now, Eternal_Freedom is right to call into question the accuracy of those projections, but unless they are off by a very wide margin, the Federation will not surrender easily. I could also point to the long tradition of Starfleet officers willing to self-destruct their vessels and defy nigh-omnipotent beings rather than give in.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2011-08-24 06:11pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23841
The Romulan Republic wrote:
The Federation has officers with enough balls to defy Q (or punch him in the face). Courage and determination in the face of impossible odds are almost a defining characteristic of Starfleet.


Of some officers of Starfleet, who neither set Federation policy and are notorious for disobeying it. This reflects how on the ability of the Federation?

Quote:
I'm merely noting that according to canon they are apparently willing to suffer 900 billion casualties. Ie, over 100 times the population of the entire Earth today. If you take issue with that, your complaint is with the DS9 writers, not me.


Who says the Federation leadership ever got those projections? And it really does not matter if they surrender or not. They will lose all their worlds and all their civilian base. Whatever survives of the Federation will be a tiny mass of ships trying to hide and wage a guerilla war.

You tell me if the Federation is willing to sacrifice 99% of their civilians on the very small chance that they might win a guerilla war after which their society will either resemble a military dictatorship or just break down.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 2 of 4
 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

It is currently 2014-04-17 06:04am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Fiction » Science Fiction » Star Wars vs Star Trek

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group