"...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Flying Spaghetti Monster, May 16, 2014.

  1. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    Go watch the unloading scene. Let me know if you see anything that might be a launcher. If not, they were there already.
    Of course Scotty knew the mission. It was him who figured out where Khan escaped to and how.
    There's a huge difference between having the ability to fire a ton of torpedoes and perform an execution with them.
    We saw weapons from one spot in TOS, but dialogue spoke of more torpedo tubes and phaser banks than they could afford to show. Come "In a Mirror, Darkly" and modern CGI, and the USS Defiant has many more weapons than we ever saw the original Enterprise use.

    And aren't those phaser turrets the same as those on the classic movie Enterprise? Yup they are.
    Seems more like the fans who read into it with the issues...
    See my point about the Constitution-class Defiant in "In a Mirror, Darkly"
    - the script needed aft-firing phasers and torpedoes, so we got them. Ditto TOS-R "This Side of Paradise", where the ship sprouted bomb bay doors to deploy satellites.
    DS9's Defiant sprouted an entire shuttlebay in "The Sound of her Voice". Starship abilities hinge on what the story of the moment demands.
     
  2. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    On the Grand Tour
    Below is a website I found completely devoted to the torpedo bays of prime universe NCC-1701. Torp Bay 1 and Torp Bay 2 signs are seen on interior shots of the Enterprise in TWOK. But scroll down the site just over half-way, and there's a still posted from TWOK where "Torp Bay 3" and "Torp Bay 4" are also clearly visible written on the walls. The author of the site does a WTF on this because he can't reconcile where those would be on the ship with other known visual clues. But the writing is on the wall, so to speak. And, on screen. Indisputable reference to a third and fourth torpedo bay.

    Link:

    http://www.trekplace.com/article01.html

    Combine that with the whopping 96 torpedoes counted on the Enterprise in TUC, and it makes sense to have more than just two tubes.
     
  3. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    NOTE: Here I am speaking of STiD as a self-contained story. If there is never again a reference to 72 torpedo tubes (verbal or visual) in the three (or four or five or however many films which will comprise the new franchise) NuTrek films, we might say that the number of torpedo tubes is much less certain than other "facts," such as, "The Enterprise travels faster than light and has transporters." Within this single story, however, the fact is that the Enterprise has 72 torpedo tubes.

    As far as onscreen evidence goes, 1. On-screen dialogue (which is the strongest evidence we have--it is "in the script," it is uttered for the purpose of establish "facts" for the audience, and it is the most objective evidence available), and 2. External features (which is not to say overall size, since this is indeterminate) of models which we see used (models are relatively more stable than the infographics, and infographics and signage are generally meant to be in the background, rather than the foreground). Consequently, for example, the no-smoking sign in TWoK matters much less than the fact that we never see anyone smoke in TOS or the TMP-era movies. What matters most is that we only see two torpedo ports on the TMP-era Enterprise and that we only ever see two ports used, not four.

    Even if we accept this background "on screen" evidence as "fact" (I do not - it's not really something that we're really meant to think about - it's a backround detail), then we still have to reconcile the 72-gun Enterprise against the 4 gun Enterprise.

    What's more threatening and warlike - a coast guard cutter with a single gun (which has 96 projectiles it can fire) or the U.S.S. Missouri? Again, what matters most are the visual tropes that our filmmakers are tapping into. There is NO ship, but there is cultural heritage of naval stories and images of naval might--the most notable of which is having a conspicuous number of weapons.

    More guns simply means you need even more internal storage for ammo (unless you're only planning on firing one broadside and then stopping, LOL). For a ship designed for a 5-year mission, is 96 torpedoes that many? If I am carrying a gun for 5 years on a deep mission, would it be surprising to find I was carrying about 100 bullets? And again, this sort of data is of the lowest order -- you're referring to technical greebles which appear in infographics and are not really meant to be attended to. People didn't have frame-by-frame capabilities to scrutinize these things when the TMP films came out. At most, you could freeze frame a fuzzy VHS tape.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2014
  4. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    A Los Angeles class submarine carries, what, 25 torpedoes? With 2 tubes. And that was supposed to hunt down other subs. I saw Hunt of Red October, I know ALL the facts.
     
  5. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    It is only your assumption that he said any such thing.
     
  6. Kemaiku

    Kemaiku Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Ulster
    There are several magasines worth in the London base, the ring explosive seems to have been a way of creating only as a large an explosion needed to set all of them (and the engine cores of all the support craft) off.
     
  7. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    Implying that the only difference between those two ships is the NUMBER OF SHELLS they carry. Fail analogy is fail.

    Try a real comparison, dude: You have a ship with 2 missile launchers, and you have a ship with 122 missile launchers. Which of these ships is the more threatening design?

    IMO, the "VLS conversion" of the Tico cruisers is more or less how the Enterprise was modified as well. It's not that the ship is more heavily armed, it's just a lot more efficient at deploying its ordinance than a ship with a small number of highly complex launchers. There are a lot of reasons why this might be, but you'd have to be a Starfleet engineer to understand what those reasons actually are.

    Except the tubes are hidden behind armored covers that are so flush with the hull we aren't even sure how many of them are there (which may or may not be intentional) I wouldn't exactly call that "conspicuous."

    I know you're just joking with this, but actually the Los Angeles class carries about 40 torpedoes with 4 tubes, and also 12 antiship missiles in an equal number of tubes.

    Interestingly, the Gato class submarines of WW-II carried only about 30 torpedoes, but they had 10 torpedo tubes (six forward, four aft). It's only been in the last few years in the age where a single torpedo is just about gauranteed to kill whatever you're shooting at that submarines were able to make due with a smaller number of tubes (where as in the 40s you had to fire all six tubes at a single target and couldn't always be 100% sure of a hit).

    Which again sort of begs the question of why Starfleet didn't do this earlier, considering it usually takes anywhere between 10 and 15 photon torpedoes to seriously damage a shielded target. When you add the fact that the Abramsverse Starfleet has actually heard of point defense, those torpedoes probably have to be fired in pretty huge salvos in order to do any damage at all.
     
  8. Captrek

    Captrek Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Location:
    Captrek
    Is it possible that the NuEnterprise has such a modular dynamic design that adding a whole bunch of torpedo tubes for one mission isn't a big deal?
     
  9. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Collect a random sample of images of "ships with one gun" and compare that to a random sample of images of "ships with at least 24 guns." Have a random sample people in the demographic that watches popular American movies look at each set of images and rank which set they find to be more threatening. Todah, the list that includes images of ships bristling with weapons will be found to be more warlike, threatening, and so on.

    Gimmicky phrasing is gimmicky (and played out and not probative)

    Sorry, dude. Your first link isn't working. I suppose you'll have to cherry-pick another image to force your point?

    There are NO Starfleet engineers. The only reasons those ports exist is to make an impression on an audience. What matters is the visual grammar of cinema and the cultural tropes associated with warships (e.g., the turrets and radio chatter in Star Wars borrowing heavily from popular WWII footage and Hollywood films).

    Should've been conspicuous to the chief engineer who is responsible for all the major systems of the ship. Should not have been a surprise to him, should it?

    Also, those ports were plenty conspicuous when they were opened, just like an old ship of the line opening her gun ports -- it's an old-school nautical reference. The point, however, is that Scotty should have been aware that he was on a ship which had a primary hull dedicated to phaser turrets and a secondary hull dedicated to torpedo tubes. He should, therefore, have been aware of the Enterprise being purposed as a warship before those mystery torpedoes were loaded.
     
  10. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    On the Grand Tour
    In describing the Vengeance, Khan said that, "Unlike most Federation vessels, it's built solely for combat."

    Granted the Federation in the new universe may be more weapons-minded in the design of its ships after Nero than the prime universe is, but does that mean the Enterprise was built for solely for combat like the Vengeance? Or, is it a dual-role vessel whose primary mission is peaceful exploration, like the Enterprise and her sister ships in the prime universe?

    Scotty is certainly aware of all the weaponry. But does that mean he should expect and approve of using those weapons for offensive purposes that may provoke a war? Wouldn't that be against what he was told Starfleet stood for? (A peacekeeping and humanitarian armada, in Pike's words.)

    Is the Enterprise a ship of war first and foremost, or a ship of science and exploration? Most who serve on her would probably say it's mostly the latter. They'd also say they all know it was obviously designed to be of service as a ship of war, but only as a defensive vessel to protect the Federation when it is necessary. For the most part, they probably do think of themselves as explorers as much or more than as soldiers. Despite its weaponry and how it apparently looks like a mean military machine to some, the Enterprise is not meant to be an instrument of gunboat diplomacy. It may be armed to the teeth, but it's armed to protect itself and the Federation, not to carry out Federation policy (or the orders of Section 31).
     
  11. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    So you disregard evidence that the classic Enterprise was more heavily armed than you'd like to believe (Franklin's post about the classic movie Enterprise, mine about the TOS-style Defiant and the movie Enterprise sharing the same phaser turrets as the new version and ships sprouting abilities as stories demand) and you keep insisting the Enterprise is "primarily a warship" despite the movie stating otherwise... good luck with that.
     
  12. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Claims about the TOS and TMP era Enterprises have been addressed, not ignored, not disregarded.

    I agree that the big E sprouts abilities and technologies as the story demands (she isn't a real ship, so it is very easy for her to do so). My point is that in this film, Scotty should have recognized her as a warship. In this film, the Enterprise participates heavily in the iconography of "ships of war." We are told that she has (at least) 72 torpedo tubes. We see torpedo "gun ports" open in the secondary hull. We see an infographic display showing tubes running along for most of the length of the secondary hull with tubes that run very deep into the center of the cylinder-shape. Her secondary hull is preoccupied with torpedo tubes in this film.

    The movie states that the Death Starship is ONLY built for war, but it does not tell us precisely how the Enterprise is purposed. Indeed, the prospect of a five-year mission is an exotic/new/alternative prospect that Kirk really seems to like. Is she a pure exploration vessel? Is she a military vessel with research capabilities? Is she a research vessel with some weaponry?

    The line we get is from Scotty, "I thought we were explorers," a line which indicates that he now realizes he may be have been wrong in his supposition. He is questioning the identity of Starfleet and her ships and not asserting it as a fact.

    The Enterprise, in this universe and in this film, is bristling with weapons. She is very much built like a classic warship from our collective cultural memory. Scotty, therefore, should not have been shocked to have 72 torpedoes loaded onto a ship with (at least) 72 torpedo tubes.

    She may not be the war machine that the Vengeance is (a ship which is only built to fight), but this Enterprise looks like a ship of the line.
     
  13. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    On the Grand Tour
    You're getting hung up on looks. OK, fine. She looks like a warship. I doubt that's lost on Scotty. But being sent on a mission of overt conflict is not her primary mission. Her primary mission is exploration.

    After all, Starfleet took this "warship" bristling with weapons and sent her into deep space on a mission of peace in order to "seek out new life and new civilizations," and "to boldly go where no one has gone, before." It's the mission Kirk longed for. Scotty was probably rooting for it, to. Exploration. Not offensive military acts. Not acts of war. Not executions.

    Now, if some great threat to the Federation appears during the five-year mission, you can bet the Enterprise will be called back to Federation space to defend the Federation. Kirk and Scotty know that's part of the deal, too. I'm sure all the torpedo tubes and phaser banks on the ship remind them of that.
     
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Oh, have no fear, that will follow.

    Things tend to be pretty simple in movie drama. Typically, heroes and their sidekicks start out not knowing things while villains know things, and the story enters a dramatic turning point when the heroes find out; usually, this coincides with the audience finding out, although sometimes the audience is told first. ST:ID only complicates this by having two sets of villains.

    Here, Kirk and Carol Marcus are under the assumption that torpedoes go boom. That's fair for heroes. Khan is under the assumption that torpedoes will not go boom, though, and he should know.

    a) He built those damn things, and he built them for the purpose of not exploding.
    b) When he commands that these torpedoes be beamed onboard his ship, he never once stops to consider the possibility that they might go boom!

    What Admiral Marcus knows is fuzzier, but it's pretty clear what he wants out of the torpedoes. Klingons will not go to war unless those torpedoes go boom!

    That's it in a nutshell. Everybody but the man who built those torps wants a kaboom. And when that man gets the kaboom, he is taken completely by surprise.

    Which means Marcus would have no motivation to put bodies in the torpedoes if it cost him an ounce of kaboom potential.

    For a rare once, a violent Star Trek movie has no element of vengeance into its plot. Marcus wants nothing of Khan; to the Admiral, it's irrelevant whether Khan lives or dies, whether he is hurt or satisfied. Marcus just wants explosive devices to go boom in the Klingon desert, with a crippled starship left bloody-handed in the scene, so that a war could be launched.

    To put bodies in those torps would be a case of Rube Goldberg twirling his moustache. It makes no sense logically, and it makes no sense dramatically. Alex Marcus is not a character driven by emotion, he's a character exploiting the emotion of others.

    In contrast, putting people in those torps is an eminently logical act for Khan, a man chained to a torpedo lathe. Murdering Starfleet personnel is a logical second step, giving Marcus his excuse for launching the war-starting plan. Because as the result, 72 torpedoes are sent to a location where all Khan has to deal with is a single starship with a captain whose primary qualification for the mission, as per Marcus' plan, is being gullible. Yet Khan would risk everything by leaving warheads in those torps...

    The only missing element is the pre-events scene where Khan, still "loyal" to Marcus, convinces him that 72 torps is the perfect arsenal for getting the war going. Or perhaps he says that more would be better, but then takes care that all but the 72 are lost in the explosion.

    How so? He's not a "war criminal" in any TNG or DS9 or VOY episode, either. He's just an example of the dangers of superhuman improvement - a leader too potent for anybody's good.

    The way the writers wanted "Space Seed" to be read is obvious: all the talk about Khan being a benign tyrant is there to prevent the character of Kirk from being dealt a crippling blow. If Khan really were more evil than Kirk thinks, the Captain would be proven a fool for believing differently - and a villain himself when letting the superman go in the end.

    It would be a plausible story development for Kirk to be a fool and a villain, but not a dramatically acceptable one. Which is why Khan needs to go from black to pale grey before the episode can be shot.

    The rest doesn't really change that. Khan is a ruthless soldier who is good at killing the enemy, but he never kills any of Kirk's crew - and even in his later throes of madness, he "maroons" the crew of the Reliant rather than slaughtering them!

    A clever idea as such, but it would require arming the Augments somehow. The torpedoes did not contain personal weaponry... And Khan's sports bag could only hold so much.

    Also, this would require Khan's slaughter of Starfleet top brass to have been part of Marcus' original plan - otherwise, the Admiral could not rely on Khan still doing his bidding, and the mission would be aborted. This is a possible interpretation of the events, but probably not the preferable one.

    The fact that the tubes could be removed so swiftly suggests that they could have been inserted just as swiftly. So the "the tubes look like fuel cells" thing, combined with a bit of automation on the assembly line, should take care of that. This, plus everybody down at the assembly floor having a healthy fear of the Admiral's mad dog of an expert.

    The big problem with that is that the Klingons did not observe anything! Not even when Kirk spent a lot more time in the area than originally planned. Clearly, the edge of the Neutral Zone is a tactically viable location for safely launching a standoff attack without being noticed - which is a relief, because otherwise Kirk would appear not just a hothead but an airhead as well.

    Six is the minimum, as per the reference to "photon torpedoes 2, 4 and 6" in "Journey to Babel". And that's just the forward tubes.

    (In theory, it might be possible to fire "torpedoes 2, 4 and 6" from a single tube, but it would sound very odd. This type of numbering is supposed to reflect how things were done back in WWII. Also see "The Changeling" for a numbered torpedo that really has to be a numbered torpedo tube.)

    ...Especially since the tubes supposedly all are directly reached from the main shuttlebay. They appear to be generic deployment chutes rather than something sized exactly for these super-torps. This doesn't mean their purpose wouldn't be purely military. But since the purpose of shuttlecraft is not purely military, and these are just "alternate doors to the shuttlebay", we can certainly speculate on a scientific or logistical emphasis for the holes.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  15. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    More assumption. All we really know is that he built them to be able to hide a cryotube. It's irrelevant anyway because the torpedoes were not in Khan's custody when they were handed over to Kirk. They were in the custody of Marcus, and if Marcus wanted them to have the power to explode at that point, then they would have had the power to explode at that point. Or as someone once said: it's pretty clear what he wants out of the torpedoes. Klingons will not go to war unless those torpedoes go boom!

    Because he doesn't think the do-gooders on the Enterprise will kill off his crew.

    And we come back to faulty assumptions again. Putting people in the torpedoes doesn't necessarily sacrifice any destructive potential. Remember, Khan's crew weren't put in the warheads. ( Also, before Kirk finds out that they were removed, he thinks that the torpedoes were detonated with bodies inside them. Impossible, right? )

    Yet another assumption, unproven and challenged by what we see onscreen. And wasn't there a ship called Vengeance?

    I think you mean "to leave bodies in the torpedoes", yes? Marcus wasn't the one who put them there. It makes logical sense if you accept that Marcus may have wanted them dead for whatever reason. Which, by the way, was suggested in dialogue.

    :rolleyes: Sure.

    When Khan was found out, the torpedoes were no longer under his control. Thus, it wasn't up to him whether or not warheads were left in the torpedoes.

    Neither scenario is required.

    He's mentioned in the same breath as Hitler. That implies much.

    But he was shown to be capable of killing all of them, and he thought that he had killed Kirk.

    And kills a bunch of innocent people on Regula I.

    Perhaps one day that might happen.

    [Gowron] But not today. [/Gowron]
     
  16. WarpFactorZ

    WarpFactorZ Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    He leaves Chekov and Tyrell alive so he can get to Kirk, not because he's a humanitarian.
     
  17. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Meaning the bodies would be removed, as they detract from the ability of the torp to go boom.

    It was Khan's intent all along that those torpedoes would get out of Earth and out of the control of Admiral Marcus, that much is obvious. So them being "not in Khan's custody" matters squat: it's all part of the plan.

    Doesn't compute. Those do-gooders are fighting him, and they are told to beam across the torpedoes, not the cryochambers. Khan wouldn't make a mistake like that if he thought the torpedoes could act as weapons.

    Naah, it's solid fact from how the characters acted, what they said, and what they did. And the ship called Vengeance is the best proof of that: it was intended to "avenge" the loss of the Enterprise, a loss cold-bloodedly planned and premeditated by the supposed "vengeful" Admiral himself. A complete sham.

    Marcus' only conceit to emotion was to provoke it in others, even if it sometimes took Jack Nicholson -style shouting and ranting.

    How so? The only possible reason he'd want to get rid of the supermen is because Khan would prove that such folks are unreliable. But Khan has served Marcus admirably so far and is going to hand him his greatest victory ever, regardless of what Khan himself thinks or does.

    If Marcus still wants these potential assets dead, though, the least workable way of doing so is to send them away where he has no control over their fate. If he is the moustache-twirling type of villain, he might send their corpses to Khan, but he would not send them to Khan alive.

    That still remains nonsense. If the torpedoes really ceased to be under Khan's control at any point, the bodies would have been removed. But their built-in security and secrecy measures ensured the success of Khan's plan - a plan that would not have gone ahead had Marcus really known about it.

    Both explain why there were 72 torpedoes. Either answers the question of this thread.

    Granted that neither scenario is required. Nor is Star Trek. But why bring that up now?

    It would if it happened. It doesn't. (Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon are mentioned in the same breath as Hitler, twice, which should tell us something about such lists.)

    I do think that my "assumption" is the better approach than your downright faulty claims...

    And that is a war crime how?

    What matters is that he leaves the hundreds of other Reliant crew alive, too. They aren't bait, they aren't hostages.

    Any soldier from today would walk away scot free from gunning down this lot of enemies. Khan doesn't stoop to being a soldier from today.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  18. Captrek

    Captrek Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Location:
    Captrek
    He would not have expected them to survive long on Ceti Alpha V without immediate rescue. If Khan had succeeded in destroying Enterprise, the Reliant crew would surely have perished too.
     
  19. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    No, they don't. That is still a false statement. Khan's crewmen aren't packed into warheads. It looks like you're trying the "they didn't have fuel" argument here, as though it somehow applies to the warheads.

    Khan didn't plan on Marcus discovering his plan. As you said yourself, Marcus needs the torpedoes to have functional warheads. Why would he release them to Kirk if they weren't capable of functioning in the way he intended? Are you rewriting Marcus into a... what was the word... fool?

    Because the cryochambers are still inside the torpedoes, as far as Khan knows.

    Getting shot at, you mean? Why do you expect Khan to treat them as being equally as ruthless as himself, when his experience on Kronos would indicate precisely the opposite? This makes no sense.

    It's you clumsily rewriting the plot. And when this particular rewrite is wholly predicated on unproven assumptions or faulty logic, calling it "solid fact" is basically a joke.

    You must have a strange definition of proof, if you think that somehow negates Khan's attack on Daystrom.

    So when he yells "Who?" he's merely trying to provoke a reaction in others as part of some master plan, not legitimately pissed off?

    By doing things that pretty much any old Section 31 operative could have done. And no, he wasn't "serving admirably". He was off the reservation.

    Unless it accomplishes more than one objective at the same time. In fact, when things go wrong, we see him go to great lengths to continue to control their fate, and the only reason it does not work out is because of Scotty's actions, which could not be planned for.

    What are you talking about? When Khan is on Kronos and the torpedoes are in Marcus' possession, by definition they are not under Khan's control any more. Lo and behold, the bodies were not removed.

    Khan's plan was not to have his people fired at the Klingons and blown up. It was to get them out intact, but he was discovered. The security measures would not be such that Marcus himself could not penetrate them. That is ridiculous. It was Marcus' own people who prevented the likes of Scotty from getting information about the torpedoes. Marcus is sketched as the kind of character who would know what was in the torpedoes he was giving to Kirk. Not what you're making him out to be. Besides, we know that Marcus knows Khan's people are in the torpedoes when he shows up with the Vengeance, because he says as much. If you allege that he figured this out after the fact, isn't it a little too conspicuously convenient that he didn't do so until after Kirk was sent on his mission? Why did he take so long to figure it out, and what ultimately provoked this sudden realization?

    No explanation is needed. Kirk was given 72 torpedoes because Khan's people were in 72 torpedoes.

    Actually, it did happen in TNG, so I guess you're conceding that it must be significant. Success!

    Moving the goalposts. I was responding to the statement that he didn't kill any crew members. The point was that he tried to.
     
  20. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    If only "looks threatening" was a quality that was in some way meaningful to the capabilities of warships...:vulcan:

    What's "cherry picking" have to do with it? It's the same class of ship in both images. So exactly which version of the Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser is more threatening?

    What do you mean "should not?" Scotty was angry about a mission to fire 72 torpedoes -- whose payloads were completely unknown -- at the Klingon homeworld for no good reason. There is no indication anywhere that he was unfamiliar with the number of torpedo tubes the ship is equipped with.

    But Enterprise ISN'T purposed as a warship, as carrying heavy weapons is not a sufficient quality to indicate military affiliation. By Scotty's direct implication -- later strongly corroborated by Khan on two separate occasions -- it is purposed as an exploration vessel; somehow, I think Scotty is in a better position to know the Enterprise's mission than you are.