Commentary on StarWarsStarTrek v. 2046

[Mr. Oragahn]

That's invalid, because the bleeding in question is for some reason transmitted from the shields to some internal systems and overloads some power conduits

It would seem you've never watched TUC, where the shielded E-A gets damaged even though her shields are still there.
Or DS9, where fully shielded ships get damaged by attacks so owerful they overwhelm them and go through to damage them...

What is the nature of the damage in both cases?
Besides, the Breen weapons ignored UFP shield tech before the update. There's no reason to believe the planetary shield, a system even more complex to update due to its infrastructure, would stop them.

[Praeothmin]

Is it possible their "power supressor" weapons aren't that powerful against structures and land then?
Because what we see in damage doesn't match the rest of DS9 when looking at weapon's damage on structures or ships...

[Mike DiCenso]

A lot of mistakes here guys.

First, the power dampening weapon did not come into use during the sneak attack on Earth, it came into use during the Second Battle of Chintoka.

Second, the Romulan attempt to invade Vulcan never got further than the border when the E-D intercepted them, and contrary to the silly claims going around, it turned out there was at least one cloaked D'Deridex class warbird escorting them:




So the Romulans probably weren't relying solely on 2,000 or so soldiers to take the planet.
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

I'm just talking about the Earth attack, and why the damage was so weak for ST weapons... :)

I care nothing for a planet that is so weak it gets destroyed by a Romulan in the bestest ST movie ever... :P

[2046]

What sort of mind would present such a thing as a failure? No force can prevent everything. That's like saying "OMG the WW2 US Navy sucked because they failed to stop attacks on America!"

Aren't you kinda shooting your own foot in saying that no force can prevent anything?

Not at all. It's simply a fact of life, especially (but not exclusively) for a free society like that of the Federation.

If tomorrow a handful of Al Qaeda gunmen (or knifemen or stickmen) do something awful in an American city and cause the death of many, it is not a failure of the United States. It is an unavoidable attack. The same is true of any other nation.

When did Al Qaeda get access to super tech? When did Al Qaeda attack the US with high tech tanks, fighters, submarines and other crafts, while using MOABs and nukes?
Erm... never.
Yet they did hit.
In fact, you just proved my point, again.

No, I proved mine. No force can stop everything. Super-tech is a ridiculous red-herring. Knives or sticks . . . and I find it offensive to have to point this out . . . are not super-tech.

Even if I encase myself in a Giza-pyramid-size steel shield with 5000 years of air and food in storage, a dedicated individual could probably find a way to kill me. And even while I live, I am not a free society . . . I am in a prison of my own making. The point I make about the Federation is the same.

If the Breen were actually that suicidal to attack Earth, why would they not mass spam the planet with whatever sort of bioweapons and torps?

They obviously couldn't or wouldn't do so, and the latter seems a bit unlikely given prior Dominion use of bioweapons.

Couldn't? You said the UFP couldn't stop all so that's not a valid counter argument.

Don't be intentionally dense. Saying they can't stop everything is not the same as allowing anything you can dream up. That's SDN-level thinking, and you should be embarrassed to have even said it.

I think it's a bit ludicrous to pretend that by attacking federal buildings and holding many people as hostages, you wouldn't get anything at all.

I'd get dead.

For one, you could probably begin passing some orders and threatening the lives of your hostages if the various branches of the Federation that are now below your direct yet usurped authority now refuse to do anything.

They're not under my authority, though they may pretend so to maintain my illusions while they plot my death.

So let's say Al Qaida took the entire Pentagon hostage and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all US and allied forces from Eurasia and Africa. That is, after all, what you're suggesting for the Breen . . . to take HQ and demand surrender. Do you really think we would bend to that?

Now, if they'd actually had a fleet that suddenly popped up around Earth and realistically could threaten the entire planet with bombardment, then you might have an argument . . . it's one thing to take the White House hostage, another altogether to be able to threaten to nuke the Washington area at will. Militarily, the imminent conquest or destruction of the capital city is a valid checkmate. But frankly, your argument is little better than having a guy take a postal worker hostage to promote policy change. It's a retarded idea.

I don't know how it was portrayed in the episode, but surely, all citizens of the Federation seeing that this new enemy could strike at the heart of the UFP and even manage land troops would obviously realize that their own authorities have massively failed and are out of touch with reality

Your ignorance of the episode (and series) is the undoing of your argument, over and above the density employed to get to it.

Besides which, I don't remember the population of the Federation being portrayed as spineless idiots.

Did all citizens of the United States, realizing that our new enemy could strike at the heart of America, "realize" that our authorities had massively failed and were out of touch with reality? No. We realized that no force could stop everything, and we rallied and sallied forth to do some ass-kicking under the theory of offense being the best defense (not to mention the most emotionally satisfying).

Another bloody conflict, after those against the Xindi, Temporal powers, Romulans, Klingons, etc.?

The Xindi? Really? Funny, I haven't heard the "No War For Oil" nutjobs complaining about 1812 as yet "another bloody conflict" for our dastardly leaders to get us involved in.

You're just being silly.

Let's not exclude the possibility of being owners of important assets among those hostages, who would surely prefer to give over some of their holdings rather than get smoked.

. . . and assuming even the Federation leadership is composed of spineless wimps, too. Nice. Is this argument based on projection?

[Praeothmin]

Yeah, I kinda have to agree with Robert here, taking Starfleet headquarter hostage wouldn't get them much except for some stalling and an attempt to take it back by force...

[Mr. Oragahn]

A lot of mistakes here guys.

First, the power dampening weapon did not come into use during the sneak attack on Earth, it came into use during the Second Battle of Chintoka.

Second, the Romulan attempt to invade Vulcan never got further than the border when the E-D intercepted them, and contrary to the silly claims going around, it turned out there was at least one cloaked D'Deridex class warbird escorting them:




So the Romulans probably weren't relying solely on 2,000 or so soldiers to take the planet.
-Mike

Not evidence that they were counting on much more though. Plus the script makes it sound like Sela was counting on the fake Vulcan ships to land and deploy troops before the Vulcans could react. She doesn't mention the warbird. Since she was 'stupid' enough to announce her plan, there was no point hiding the fact that a D'Deridex was part of the party. I think that warbird may have not followed the Vulcan ships, and may have operated within a region where it still could do so without pissing off the Vulcans too much; or perhaps not, but this move of pseudo good faith would be enough diplomatically wise to show that the Romulans weren't aware of this plan.
In the end all we have is a few small Vulcan ships, confirmed over 2000 Romulan troops, and eventually, at best, that single warbird. Still not much for a planetary invasion.

Yeah, I kinda have to agree with Robert here, taking Starfleet headquarter hostage wouldn't get them much except for some stalling and an attempt to take it back by force...

Of course they would most likely think about that, although there's no guarantee that they would even try or succeed without blowing most of the stuff up and killing just too many people, directly or not. Going with the capture scenario, if the Breen were OK for such a mission, you would bet that if they had succeeded they'd have taken some serious stuff with them.

What sort of mind would present such a thing as a failure? No force can prevent everything. That's like saying "OMG the WW2 US Navy sucked because they failed to stop attacks on America!"

Aren't you kinda shooting your own foot in saying that no force can prevent anything?

Not at all. It's simply a fact of life, especially (but not exclusively) for a free society like that of the Federation.

If tomorrow a handful of Al Qaeda gunmen (or knifemen or stickmen) do something awful in an American city and cause the death of many, it is not a failure of the United States. It is an unavoidable attack. The same is true of any other nation.

When did Al Qaeda get access to super tech? When did Al Qaeda attack the US with high tech tanks, fighters, submarines and other crafts, while using MOABs and nukes?
Erm... never.
Yet they did hit.
In fact, you just proved my point, again.

No, I proved mine. No force can stop everything. Super-tech is a ridiculous red-herring. Knives or sticks . . . and I find it offensive to have to point this out . . . are not super-tech.

Even if I encase myself in a Giza-pyramid-size steel shield with 5000 years of air and food in storage, a dedicated individual could probably find a way to kill me. And even while I live, I am not a free society . . . I am in a prison of my own making. The point I make about the Federation is the same.

Well, sorry if you get offended so easily, but the point is fairly simple. I'm not even seeing where you think you're going with that over the top analogy.
Since Al Qaeda did manage to hit the US, if they had a better weapon technology than mere plastic forks, knives, spoons and perhaps some explosive panties, chances are that they would have used said tech, or threatened to use it while the people on the defense would know have known the fundies were neither kidding nor bluffing.
In the case of our fundies, the answer is quite simple: they had nothing else but that few plastic goods. They didn't even get a chance to capture anything at all. It wasn't the plan.
The Breen? Not so much. They attacked Earth with their own fleet. They would not come with party poppers if the plan was to do anything to, at least, get a single nuclear weapon beneath the shield.
You do have to understand that at some point, you'll have to explain how you think you've proved that for some reason, the Breen could have not dropped even a single kiloton nuke or fired a stupidly low fraction of a high multi-petawatt disruptor beam at the HQ despite the fact you admitted no one could stop everything and that we have proof physical damage was brought upon the Federation HQs.
Again, if one can't stop everything, why should I believe that the UFP would suddenly be capable of stopping all weapons more powerful than a MOAB or less?

See, I never claimed a false dilemma where everything or nothing could pass. Your quote job really gives a different vision of what I argued.
I simply suggest a much preferable scenario that does not require back breaking logic to handwave away the odd absence of a flattened scenery in lieu of San Francisco.

Now, if the Breen's plan was not about mass destruction, but a more "subtle" attempt at taking the UFP buildings by force, it could explain why their ships may have been more geared towards an invasion than towards a bombardment. It does follow. Military wise, you equip your ships regarding of how you're going to use them.
An invasion scenario would explain why the Breen actually came short of potent weapons, and/or held back using all of them, especially if they managed to puncture the planetary shields (assuming they exist) and still wanted to act or die like warriors and complete their capture mission by landing their troops.
For example, we can say that unfortunately, they finally got entirely shot down before they realized that they should have tried to nuke the whole place. Some Breen did get beamed down, but it was a failure. The few ships that passed through got shot down and crashed (like one could have been responsible of the hole in the Golden Gate) and other debris rained all over the HQ.

Now your option from your debate with SWST, the failed bombardment, is much more complicated, because we do know that stuff reached the surface, and damage happened. So if there's been a shield, we must think that for the very moment the shield got pierced in some fashion, yet not a single Breen ship had the capacity to fire a WMD level projectile or beam, even if they had just breached the shield. You know, spamming the shield BUT just not firing a single petajoule in excess of what's needed... that is quite odd, to say the least.
It's even more complicated because there would be very little chances of the Breen deciding to precisely fire what is exactly necessary to bring the shields down and fire nothing else, and have anticipated the shield breach by not having a single missile still en route towards said shield at a time it would be holed.

Chances of that happening? One a in a trillion perhaps?
Seriously.
Perhaps they shot down their own projectiles to get a clean breach, just for the sport?
Or Q did it.

They obviously couldn't or wouldn't do so, and the latter seems a bit unlikely given prior Dominion use of bioweapons.

Couldn't? You said the UFP couldn't stop all so that's not a valid counter argument.

Don't be intentionally dense. Saying they can't stop everything is not the same as allowing anything you can dream up. That's SDN-level thinking, and you should be embarrassed to have even said it.

Is it possible you could actually address the argument instead of red herring it away with an ad hominem?
I'm merely using that branch you handed me after all.

I think it's a bit ludicrous to pretend that by attacking federal buildings and holding many people as hostages, you wouldn't get anything at all.

I'd get dead.

Just like when attacking the Federation Headquarters, so obviously getting dead didn't bother the Breen.
It doesn't enter the equation, so we must look elsewhere, and can certainly not use the fear of death or chances of getting killed as a counter argument to the troop deployment scenario.
All in all, it certainly doesn't prove that the Breen would get nothing out of a hostage scenario. I can already see those cortical implants and neural truncheons being useful, to boot. ;)

For one, you could probably begin passing some orders and threatening the lives of your hostages if the various branches of the Federation that are now below your direct yet usurped authority now refuse to do anything.

They're not under my authority, though they may pretend so to maintain my illusions while they plot my death.

So let's say Al Qaida took the entire Pentagon hostage and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all US and allied forces from Eurasia and Africa. That is, after all, what you're suggesting for the Breen . . . to take HQ and demand surrender. Do you really think we would bend to that?

Probably not, if you think the administration is made up of brainless movie-like GI Joes. Much more arguable if they're made up of normal people, with billions of civilians, humans, on Earth and beyond, being aware of what happened, plus some other aliens.
Let's consider the actual real impact of Al Qaeda being able to precisely pull that, you know, successfully attacking, capturing and holding not just the Pentagon, but the equivalent of all of the Federation's administrative structures that were present there, or at least a good number of them or even less, the most important. How do you think the whole political and military spectrum would react after such a deep revealing defeat?

Or would you think that those Breen warriors, most likely kamikaze enough to attack Earth so frontally, wouldn't think at least once about bringing some very 'splosive stuff with them, just in case they wouldn't get what they came here for? It's not like it's particularly hard, in the 24th century, to sneak a multi-megaton device. They can effectively threaten San Francisco any time.
Let's not dismiss the possibility of the Breen, by now being under the rumoured planetary shield and sitting in the very heart of the Federation, being able to threaten any place on Earth or at least near San Francisco with some pesky WMD beaming strategy. I mean, while you're there, why not? They have the tech, there's probably several beaming platforms they can now use, plus perhaps some on diplomatic shuttles, etc. Not to count anything they could have gotten from Logistical Support.

Now, if they'd actually had a fleet that suddenly popped up around Earth and realistically could threaten the entire planet with bombardment, then you might have an argument . . . it's one thing to take the White House hostage, another altogether to be able to threaten to nuke the Washington area at will. Militarily, the imminent conquest or destruction of the capital city is a valid checkmate. But frankly, your argument is little better than having a guy take a postal worker hostage to promote policy change. It's a retarded idea.

Why? Surely, saying it's retarded wouldn't be your unique and best argument here, right?
Besides, see above, it's already answered.

I don't know how it was portrayed in the episode, but surely, all citizens of the Federation seeing that this new enemy could strike at the heart of the UFP and even manage land troops would obviously realize that their own authorities have massively failed and are out of touch with reality

Your ignorance of the episode (and series) is the undoing of your argument, over and above the density employed to get to it.

Density of what? Could you at least begin to show what kind of crucial facts I'm overlooking here?

Besides which, I don't remember the population of the Federation being portrayed as spineless idiots.

Irrelevant.
Never claimed they were spineless idiots.

Did all citizens of the United States, realizing that our new enemy could strike at the heart of America, "realize" that our authorities had massively failed and were out of touch with reality? No. We realized that no force could stop everything, and we rallied and sallied forth to do some ass-kicking under the theory of offense being the best defense (not to mention the most emotionally satisfying).

Before I get struck by another spade of jingoistic nonsense, I will remind you that you are factually forgetting that the US has largely proved that it massively failed in Middle East, and keeps doing so, at the expense of US citizens' resources, who I am sure by now realize that Al Qaeda attacked the US because the US fucked up earlier on at some point in time, and that those billions spent in weapons and those tens of thousands dead soldiers (both in mission kills and all deaths during transport to medical facilities, those pesky numbers generally left out of counts) would have been better at home with jobs, money and families.
Not to say, once again, that Al Qaeda simply didn't have the technological edge to actually bargain for anything. They made a cheap strike (although it still managed to be costly, a "great" ROI here), and it ended there. Period.
The strike hurt, but that was all. They didn't land thousands of troops or more, dunno, equipped with über tech, planted nukes and held thousands of people as hostages directly and had the capacity to beam-nuke any stuff on a planetary radius range.
Just sayin'.

Another bloody conflict, after those against the Xindi, Temporal powers, Romulans, Klingons, etc.?

The Xindi? Really? Funny, I haven't heard the "No War For Oil" nutjobs complaining about 1812 as yet "another bloody conflict" for our dastardly leaders to get us involved in.
You're just being silly.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here, but I'm merely citing a list of rather considerable conflicts where not only the Federation as a whole got seriously threatened, but Earth itself.

Let's not exclude the possibility of being owners of important assets among those hostages, who would surely prefer to give over some of their holdings rather than get smoked.

. . . and assuming even the Federation leadership is composed of spineless wimps, too. Nice. Is this argument based on projection?

Projection? Are you suggesting that I'm a spineless wimp or something?
FYI, there are cowards at every corner of a population. And there are some who would prefer losing parts of their culture or portions of their liberty, not knowing what the future is made of, instead of dying. Again, the geniuses in super brain's batcave precisely considered a surrender.
We're not living in that special land of yours where everybody is a suicidal ultra-patriotic Rambo in the waiting!

[Mike DiCenso]

Not evidence that they were counting on much more though. Plus the script makes it sound like Sela was counting on the fake Vulcan ships to land and deploy troops before the Vulcans could react. She doesn't mention the warbird. Since she was 'stupid' enough to announce her plan, there was no point hiding the fact that a D'Deridex was part of the party. I think that warbird may have not followed the Vulcan ships, and may have operated within a region where it still could do so without pissing off the Vulcans too much; or perhaps not, but this move of pseudo good faith would be enough diplomatically wise to show that the Romulans weren't aware of this plan.

In the end all we have is a few small Vulcan ships, confirmed over 2000 Romulan troops, and eventually, at best, that single warbird. Still not much for a planetary invasion.

Not quite:

WORF: The Vulcan defence vessels are also responding. The Romulan force is retreating toward the Neutral Zone.

RIKER: They're not taking those Vulcan ships home with them.

WORF: Visual range, Commander.

RIKER: On screen.

LAFORGE: Romulan warbird decloaking alongside the Vulcan ships.

RIKER: Red alert.

(but the green meanie is facing the Vulcan ships)

RIKER: Advise the warbird to withdraw from Federation space, and tell them to leave the Vulcan ships where they are.

WORF: The warbird is powering up its forward disruptor array.

RIKER: Ready phasers.

(KaBOOM, kaBOOM, kaBOOM, and the green meanie cloaks again)

LAFORGE: There were over two thousand Romulan troops on board those ships.

TROI: They destroyed their own invasion force.

RIKER: Rather than let them be taken prisoner. Stand down Red alert. Mister Worf, advise the Klingon ship to signal us as soon as Captain Picard and Data are safely aboard.

WORF: Aye, sir.

The D'Deridex was clearly also inside Federation space alongside the three stolen Vulcan ships, so it's very probable that it was was intended to be more than just the three ships taking part in the attack.

If the 2,000-plus Romulan troops were all that was required, wouldn't they have just set them up to self-destruct, rather than have a big ol' warbird tootling around with them as a "just in case" escort? Seems to me that you're in a bit of denial, like certain other people as to the true scope of the Romulan operation. The troops on the transport were probably there to secure ground on Vulcan, knock out local security resistance and shut down planetary defenses to allow the troops on the warbird... or warbirds.. to beam down unmolested while the warbird/s themselves provide additional support from space, and given the size of a single warbird in terms of volume, it could easily transport tens of thousands of troops.

Another interesting detail above there is the fact that Vulcan security ships were responding, which indicates again that at least some Federation members have their own home guard forces, adding to the planetary defenses and to potential ship counts.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

I'm just talking about the Earth attack, and why the damage was so weak for ST weapons... :)

I care nothing for a planet that is so weak it gets destroyed by a Romulan in the bestest ST movie ever... :P

As you can see, I was responding to both you and to Mr. O. Besides which, Vulcan was destroyed by a massive advanced 12 km Romulan ship from the future that employed an a highly destructive WMD, and not just some random contemporary ship. If the speculated timeline for events is correct, Vulcan held out for several hours against the Narada, which ain't bad at all when you consider a 7 or so Starfleet taskforce didn't anywhere near so long.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Not evidence that they were counting on much more though. Plus the script makes it sound like Sela was counting on the fake Vulcan ships to land and deploy troops before the Vulcans could react. She doesn't mention the warbird. Since she was 'stupid' enough to announce her plan, there was no point hiding the fact that a D'Deridex was part of the party. I think that warbird may have not followed the Vulcan ships, and may have operated within a region where it still could do so without pissing off the Vulcans too much; or perhaps not, but this move of pseudo good faith would be enough diplomatically wise to show that the Romulans weren't aware of this plan.

In the end all we have is a few small Vulcan ships, confirmed over 2000 Romulan troops, and eventually, at best, that single warbird. Still not much for a planetary invasion.

Not quite:

WORF: The Vulcan defence vessels are also responding. The Romulan force is retreating toward the Neutral Zone.

RIKER: They're not taking those Vulcan ships home with them.

WORF: Visual range, Commander.

RIKER: On screen.

LAFORGE: Romulan warbird decloaking alongside the Vulcan ships.

RIKER: Red alert.

(but the green meanie is facing the Vulcan ships)

RIKER: Advise the warbird to withdraw from Federation space, and tell them to leave the Vulcan ships where they are.

WORF: The warbird is powering up its forward disruptor array.

RIKER: Ready phasers.

(KaBOOM, kaBOOM, kaBOOM, and the green meanie cloaks again)

LAFORGE: There were over two thousand Romulan troops on board those ships.

TROI: They destroyed their own invasion force.

RIKER: Rather than let them be taken prisoner. Stand down Red alert. Mister Worf, advise the Klingon ship to signal us as soon as Captain Picard and Data are safely aboard.

WORF: Aye, sir.

The D'Deridex was clearly also inside Federation space alongside the three stolen Vulcan ships, so it's very probable that it was was intended to be more than just the three ships taking part in the attack.

If the 2,000-plus Romulan troops were all that was required, wouldn't they have just set them up to self-destruct, rather than have a big ol' warbird tootling around with them as a "just in case" escort? Seems to me that you're in a bit of denial, like certain other people as to the true scope of the Romulan operation. The troops on the transport were probably there to secure ground on Vulcan, knock out local security resistance and shut down planetary defenses to allow the troops on the warbird... or warbirds.. to beam down unmolested while the warbird/s themselves provide additional support from space, and given the size of a single warbird in terms of volume, it could easily transport tens of thousands of troops.

Another interesting detail above there is the fact that Vulcan security ships were responding, which indicates again that at least some Federation members have their own home guard forces, adding to the planetary defenses and to potential ship counts.
-Mike

Well that really sucks to be said to be in denial when you quoted my message and I said I would accept the D'Deridex to play a part in that as well, although I consider the argument weak. It's still not much in the end, without any proof that that warbird was part of the attack. It could just be the Romulans' way of covering their backs in case things go wrong and there's no proof they could plant those bombs in those Vulcan ships, nor there's proof they could mask them from internal screening. So we can settle on a low end, 2000 troops, and a higher sure end without entering baseless speculation, that is, whatever amount of troops which can be reliably carried by a warbird. Your scenario of landing on Vulcan and disabling defenses is a good one.

[2046]

No, I proved mine. No force can stop everything. Super-tech is a ridiculous red-herring. Knives or sticks . . . and I find it offensive to have to point this out . . . are not super-tech.

Even if I encase myself in a Giza-pyramid-size steel shield with 5000 years of air and food in storage, a dedicated individual could probably find a way to kill me. And even while I live, I am not a free society . . . I am in a prison of my own making. The point I make about the Federation is the same.

Well, sorry if you get offended so easily, but the point is fairly simple. I'm not even seeing where you think you're going with that over the top analogy.

. . . says the guy who started talking about super-tech when I brought up Al Qaida gunmen.

Since Al Qaeda did manage to hit the US, if they had a better weapon technology than mere plastic forks, knives, spoons and perhaps some explosive panties, chances are that they would have used said tech, or threatened to use it while the people on the defense would know have known the fundies were neither kidding nor bluffing.

I don't know what you're talking about, but fortunately neither do you. Therefore, it's not relevant.

See, I never claimed a false dilemma where everything or nothing could pass. Your quote job really gives a different vision of what I argued.

There is no "quote job", 'hat, it's the same quotes but quoted individually due to the limitations on nested quoting the board software enforces. Our conversation is as quoted, which basically just involves you making embarrassing statements about how anything goes on account of the defenders not being able to stop everything, and not understanding how that's embarrassing.

Observe:

Couldn't? You said the UFP couldn't stop all so that's not a valid counter argument.

Don't be intentionally dense. Saying they can't stop everything is not the same as allowing anything you can dream up. That's SDN-level thinking, and you should be embarrassed to have even said it.

Is it possible you could actually address the argument instead of red herring it away with an ad hominem?

What argument? A fallacy is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and disproves itself as soon as it is constructed.

So let's say Al Qaida took the entire Pentagon hostage and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all US and allied forces from Eurasia and Africa. That is, after all, what you're suggesting for the Breen . . . to take HQ and demand surrender. Do you really think we would bend to that?

Probably not, if you think the administration is made up of brainless movie-like GI Joes.

See, we really have no common ground on this topic, because you are not thinking rationally about it at all. Even the biggest gaping pansies will recognize that having a whole country cave to hostage-taker demands just invites the next group to take hostages the next day, and so on . . . this might give the wimps you describe a modicum of courage, however fleeting.

Like, seriously, I would even think the present US administration would have more balls than that. But no, you declare the presence of balls to be right-wing GI Joe jingoism.

Which is funny, mind you, since the right-wing folks have suspected a lack of testicles on the left for some time.

Anyway, I have absolutely no respect for your statements in this thread, and haven't seen anything to suggest further attention is indicated.

Your main topical claim is that the Federation failed somehow by not defending 100% against the Breen sneak attack, whereas I believe that the light damage we saw was indicative of an overall defense success. Further, you are creating a massive convoluted tl;dr story on how the Breen could've totally nuked the place from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) except they forgot their nukes that day, whereas I find it far simpler to believe that even in the open society of the Federation, safeguards against such things exist . . . that's why it was a light attack.

We will never agree on these points, because you have such strange ideas on how the world works that I would basically have to educate you for a couple of years and then make you re-read my posts, at which point you would get it and feel shame at your own typings. But I don't have the time or will to do that, so let's just agree to disagree.

[mojo]

even i thought that was kinda mean, dark.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, sorry if you get offended so easily, but the point is fairly simple. I'm not even seeing where you think you're going with that over the top analogy.

. . . says the guy who started talking about super-tech when I brought up Al Qaida gunmen.

And obviously the point still flies above your head, high orbit.

Since Al Qaeda did manage to hit the US, if they had a better weapon technology than mere plastic forks, knives, spoons and perhaps some explosive panties, chances are that they would have used said tech, or threatened to use it while the people on the defense would know have known the fundies were neither kidding nor bluffing.

I don't know what you're talking about, but fortunately neither do you. Therefore, it's not relevant.

Nice try. I'm sorry for you if your analogy backfired and just proved my point.
Let's just remember that you essentially brought Al Qaeda as part of an example about how you cannot stop everything, and I pointed out that if AQ had much more powerful weapons and superior technology, there was no reason why they wouldn't have used all of that. That and everything I have said since about AQ and the Breen.
It is just that simple.

See, I never claimed a false dilemma where everything or nothing could pass. Your quote job really gives a different vision of what I argued.

There is no "quote job", 'hat, it's the same quotes but quoted individually due to the limitations on nested quoting the board software enforces. Our conversation is as quoted, which basically just involves you making embarrassing statements about how anything goes on account of the defenders not being able to stop everything, and not understanding how that's embarrassing.

You simply picked bits you found fancy without actually letting them rest in their original posts, where more of my opinion was fleshed out and gave true and complete meaning to my words.
I don't even see what you're trying to achieve with that silly trolling, because my posts are still there to see, and things would have gone smoothly if it wasn't just you making things a case of life or death. If your ego can't cope with that little amount of stress from being offended by unimportant ideas and being wrong on a forum (OMGZ!!1!), perhaps you should quit altogether?
That would spare you from being needlessly obnoxious while using a balanced mix of clear insults and pejorative descriptions that are meant to be insulting and degrading, but devoid of direct neon-bright foul language.

Is it possible you could actually address the argument instead of red herring it away with an ad hominem?

What argument? A fallacy is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and disproves itself as soon as it is constructed.

You claim it's a fallacy. But you have not begun to prove it is one.
Let's notice that I'm not "allowing anything I can dream up", unless you think nukes and other environmental bioweapons are some über tech to the Breen.
Let's not even enter the realm of true doomsday weapons and other subspace madjix, huh.

See, we really have no common ground on this topic, because you are not thinking rationally about it at all.

Rite.

Even the biggest gaping pansies will recognize that having a whole country cave to hostage-taker demands just invites the next group to take hostages the next day, and so on . . . this might give the wimps you describe a modicum of courage, however fleeting.

What next group?
And again, good job trying to paint the Breen as your average bunch of guys from the mountains equipped with rifles and TNT sticks. This is largely why you just can't understand what I'm saying, because you're stuck under some glass ceiling, some inappropriate paradigm.

Anyway, I have absolutely no respect for your statements in this thread, and haven't seen anything to suggest further attention is indicated.

Well, that I got. I guess we won't be friends this year. :(

Your main topical claim is that the Federation failed somehow by not defending 100% against the Breen sneak attack, whereas I believe that the light damage we saw was indicative of an overall defense success.

Not exactly. I'm pointing out that the odds are all up against the idea of the Breen managing to assault Earth, pierce some rumoured planetary shield, and yet fail to do anything beyond dropping the equivalent of some TNT crates.
That's some very tight weapons and logistics budget control!
My point is that they may have not actually aimed at causing as much damage as possible, and it's even possible that it would have been detrimental to their plan if they had caused too many casualties among the population.

Further, you are creating a massive convoluted tl;dr story on how the Breen could've totally nuked the place from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) except they forgot their nukes that day,...

When? Just try to read what I wrote, and not what you want to read.
You're conflating two different ideas I addressed, one being the Breen looking for slaging Earth, the other with the Breen planing a deployment to take control of the Federation HQ.
The former requiring the ships to be armed up to the chin, the second one requiring a change in the loadout with more ships geared towards ground support and deployment, which obviously means less capabilities for space warfare and orbital bombardment, plus a clear intent to avoid inefficient casualties.

... whereas I find it far simpler to believe that even in the open society of the Federation, safeguards against such things exist . . . that's why it was a light attack.

Ha? Safeguards against... I don't know, firing petawatt beams once the shields are gone? Intercepting all torpedoes and potential beaming, anywhere and everywhere? Stopping anykind of subspace weapon or bioweapon that spreads across the atmosphere?
How much more many super defenses are you going to claim there? How many sandwhich layers of shields, torpedo interception racks, air combing filters and other great many buried phaser banks?

We will never agree on these points, because you have such strange ideas on how the world works that I would basically have to educate you for a couple of years and then make you re-read my posts, at which point you would get it and feel shame at your own typings.

Let not humility suffocate you, mate.

But I don't have the time or will to do that, so let's just agree to disagree.

OK.

[Picard]

Maybe these troops were there to try and shut down planetary defences, allowing Warbird to perform General Order 24 equivalent, or - as suggested by Mr. O and Mike - to call in rest of cloaked fleet to beam down troops. If alternate reality E-D was able to hold 6 000 troops, then I can certainly see warbird holding some 10 - 30 thousand troops. Maybe even 50 to 100 thousand troops (I think Darkstar mentioned on his site that WTC had 1 square kilometer of rentable space, and was regularly occupied by 50 000 people). Even if you only count "head", you have 1.72 to 3.11 square kilometers of space. That can easily mean 29 to 156 thousand troops low, and 145 to 650 thousand troops high end. On the other hand, if only "tail" is for troop transport, we have 2 to 13 thousand troops per ship low end - probably more like 10 to 65 thousand troops per ship.

And Al Quaida isn't unstoppable beacouse it has super tech, it is beacouse it uses assymetrical warfare, and was originally formed and trained by CIA - and, if you like conspiration theories, is still part of CIA, used to validate War for Oil - ups, War against Terror. ;-)

Additionally, these troops might only be there to kidnap government officials and force them to join Empire - Vulcans and Romulans are a kin, after all. Or to simply test how prepared Federation is for real invasion. Or to incite rebellion (Bay of Pigs Invasion equivalent).

[Lucky]

Well, sorry if you get offended so easily, but the point is fairly simple. I'm not even seeing where you think you're going with that over the top analogy.

. . . says the guy who started talking about super-tech when I brought up Al Qaida gunmen.

And obviously the point still flies above your head, high orbit.

Since Al Qaeda did manage to hit the US, if they had a better weapon technology than mere plastic forks, knives, spoons and perhaps some explosive panties, chances are that they would have used said tech, or threatened to use it while the people on the defense would know have known the fundies were neither kidding nor bluffing.

I don't know what you're talking about, but fortunately neither do you. Therefore, it's not relevant.

Nice try. I'm sorry for you if your analogy backfired and just proved my point.
Let's just remember that you essentially brought Al Qaeda as part of an example about how you cannot stop everything, and I pointed out that if AQ had much more powerful weapons and superior technology, there was no reason why they wouldn't have used all of that. That and everything I have said since about AQ and the Breen.
It is just that simple.

See, I never claimed a false dilemma where everything or nothing could pass. Your quote job really gives a different vision of what I argued.

There is no "quote job", 'hat, it's the same quotes but quoted individually due to the limitations on nested quoting the board software enforces. Our conversation is as quoted, which basically just involves you making embarrassing statements about how anything goes on account of the defenders not being able to stop everything, and not understanding how that's embarrassing.

You simply picked bits you found fancy without actually letting them rest in their original posts, where more of my opinion was fleshed out and gave true and complete meaning to my words.
I don't even see what you're trying to achieve with that silly trolling, because my posts are still there to see, and things would have gone smoothly if it wasn't just you making things a case of life or death. If your ego can't cope with that little amount of stress from being offended by unimportant ideas and being wrong on a forum (OMGZ!!1!), perhaps you should quit altogether?
That would spare you from being needlessly obnoxious while using a balanced mix of clear insults and pejorative descriptions that are meant to be insulting and degrading, but devoid of direct neon-bright foul language.

Is it possible you could actually address the argument instead of red herring it away with an ad hominem?

What argument? A fallacy is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and disproves itself as soon as it is constructed.

You claim it's a fallacy. But you have not begun to prove it is one.
Let's notice that I'm not "allowing anything I can dream up", unless you think nukes and other environmental bioweapons are some über tech to the Breen.
Let's not even enter the realm of true doomsday weapons and other subspace madjix, huh.

See, we really have no common ground on this topic, because you are not thinking rationally about it at all.

Rite.

Even the biggest gaping pansies will recognize that having a whole country cave to hostage-taker demands just invites the next group to take hostages the next day, and so on . . . this might give the wimps you describe a modicum of courage, however fleeting.

What next group?
And again, good job trying to paint the Breen as your average bunch of guys from the mountains equipped with rifles and TNT sticks. This is largely why you just can't understand what I'm saying, because you're stuck under some glass ceiling, some inappropriate paradigm.

Anyway, I have absolutely no respect for your statements in this thread, and haven't seen anything to suggest further attention is indicated.

Well, that I got. I guess we won't be friends this year. :(

Your main topical claim is that the Federation failed somehow by not defending 100% against the Breen sneak attack, whereas I believe that the light damage we saw was indicative of an overall defense success.

Not exactly. I'm pointing out that the odds are all up against the idea of the Breen managing to assault Earth, pierce some rumoured planetary shield, and yet fail to do anything beyond dropping the equivalent of some TNT crates.
That's some very tight weapons and logistics budget control!
My point is that they may have not actually aimed at causing as much damage as possible, and it's even possible that it would have been detrimental to their plan if they had caused too many casualties among the population.

Further, you are creating a massive convoluted tl;dr story on how the Breen could've totally nuked the place from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) except they forgot their nukes that day,...

When? Just try to read what I wrote, and not what you want to read.
You're conflating two different ideas I addressed, one being the Breen looking for slaging Earth, the other with the Breen planing a deployment to take control of the Federation HQ.
The former requiring the ships to be armed up to the chin, the second one requiring a change in the loadout with more ships geared towards ground support and deployment, which obviously means less capabilities for space warfare and orbital bombardment, plus a clear intent to avoid inefficient casualties.

... whereas I find it far simpler to believe that even in the open society of the Federation, safeguards against such things exist . . . that's why it was a light attack.

Ha? Safeguards against... I don't know, firing petawatt beams once the shields are gone? Intercepting all torpedoes and potential beaming, anywhere and everywhere? Stopping anykind of subspace weapon or bioweapon that spreads across the atmosphere?
How much more many super defenses are you going to claim there? How many sandwhich layers of shields, torpedo interception racks, air combing filters and other great many buried phaser banks?

We will never agree on these points, because you have such strange ideas on how the world works that I would basically have to educate you for a couple of years and then make you re-read my posts, at which point you would get it and feel shame at your own typings.

Let not humility suffocate you, mate.

But I don't have the time or will to do that, so let's just agree to disagree.

OK.

The damage seemed to be done through heating the targets Mr. O hence the warping of the bridge. I don't see how you could do it with explosions.

Keep in mind Star Trek has ground based torpedo launchers, phasers, theater shields, and shields that cover the entire planet from a single point, and Star Trek weapons are made to deal with these defenses. What we see is likely beam weapons that cause bleed through damage when they hit shields.