View Single Post
Old August 20 2013, 09:16 PM   #173
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Show me where it says in the military that a defensive action would exclude destroying your enemy.
For the fourth time, it doesn't EXCLUDE destroying the enemy. That is simply not the GOAL of defensive action, which is why a defensive action that manages to destroy the enemy can still fail as a defensive action. That is the whole point of the distinction, in fact: an offensive action is taken for the singular goal of eliminating the enemy forces from the battlefield, one way or another. Defensive action is something you to do prevent your OWN elimination.

That can include killing or destroying their units.
Of course it can. But that is not the GOAL.

So what do you think about the tail gunners on a WW2 bomber? They're firing guns to destroy enemy planes that are attacking them yet they are in a defensive role since they are unlikely to fly the bomber backwards to chase down an enemy plane.
They're also unlikely to SHOOT DOWN the enemy plane. That isn't the point anyway: the gunners' job is to shoot at the enemy, forcing them to take evasive action and make it harder for them to attack the bombers. If you can kill them, great, but since you usually CAN'T, it's enough to keep them from really shooting at you.

The same applies to escort planes, actually. The escorts are expected to pass up opportunities to kill enemy aircraft if it means staying with the bomber formation and defending it. If you shoot down every enemy plane in the sky but loose all of your bombers, your defensive action has failed.

Now, a defensive WEAPON is one that is optimized for use in a defensive action. Tailguns on bombers is one example. Some close-in weapon systems on naval vessels also qualify. Defensive weapons can be used offensively under some circumstances, but that, again, is not the reason they were installed and not how they were INTENDED to be used.

And you can also control the ship completely from Engineering as seen in "The Ultimate Computer" when they wired in an automation device that could not be manually overridden.
They wired an automation device that CHOSE NOT to be manually overridden. There was, if you remember, a manual override built into Kirk's chair specifically for that reason (and M5 went out of its way to bypass it).

Do you have a screenshot to connect that to a ladderway? It just looks like some part of engineering.

Note the ladder located behind Scotty (the other engineer is holding a piece of equipment in front of it). Note the lights on the wall next to him. Most importantly, note the fact that Scotty's right shoulder is resting against the hatch on the bottom of the ladderway; this is the same hatch that Spock pulls open on his way to the engine room just before he sacrifices his life.

You didn't cover manual override as I had written earlier. So again, if it was just a software problem Scotty could have gone for a manual override.
Which would have gotten him what, exactly, since he still wouldn't be able to control those systems from the bridge without the automation center in place?

They had plenty of time to face off against the BOP and listen to Kruge's threats and David's death.
It was too late by then. Without the automation center there's no way to actually run the Enterprise with just six people. Even if they could still get their systems working at that point (with an unshielded torpedo hit at that range, what condition is the ship even IN?) they wouldn't be able to control them effectively. Without automation it takes at least 60 people to run the ship; it simply wasn't an option.

Depends on what you're trying to do. Manually running the ship on an extended trip would be a problem with 6 people. But going downstairs to manually activate a device (see Generations) or transfer power to phasers doesn't appear to be an insurmountable task if manual override was an option.
Again, after being hit by a photon torpedo that's a pretty delicate operation there may not be any time for.

More importantly, even in generations this involved Kirk running down to deflector control and making modifications to the system so the fully-staffed bridge crew could activate the deflector and steer their totally undamaged ship out of danger. Imagine them trying to pull off that same trick with a thirty-foot hole in the computer core and only four functional people on the bridge.

It hit to the port side of the deflection crystal housing
It never got anywhere near the deflector crystal housing. Slightly aft of the bridge, either directly aft or a little to starboard.

So where is your evidence that their training flight would have excluded a training exploration at some point in their itinerary?
You're asking me to prove a negative. Does a training cruise that may not even leave the solar system include exploration missions to actual planets? IF it does, then we might make the case for the presence of mission-ready scientific equipment that might have been useful on genesis. But there's no indication they were planning any of the kind, and the lack of such equipment works as an explanation for why they had to return to spacedock to be refitted for an exploration mission.

Another thought: what would Enterprise have done against Chang if they WEREN'T carrying all that equipment for cataloging gaseous anomalies?

Pulverizing a "small" 200-300meter asteroid would require significant energy.
Depends on the asteroid; a gravelpit with very little cohesion could be broken apart even if the torpedo had no warhead.

Then again, I wouldn't call 200 to 300 meters "small."
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote