When did Star Fleet Start Using Lasers as Weapons?

[Christopher]

Did I really need to point out explicitly that I was referring to the "in universe" point of view, not the "real world point of view"?

But the point is that the creators' real-world intention was that they'd always been called phasers in-universe, and that what we see onscreen is a rough approximation of what's "real" in-universe. In other words, Star Trek is not documentary footage of actual events, it's a dramatic recreation of those events, and sometimes makes errors in its presentation. So what's going on in-universe isn't identical in detail to what we see on the screen. (For instance, in-universe, the Kirk and Scott of the Abramsverse look identical to their Prime counterparts, since Spock Prime recognizes them on sight. There's no need to explain the change in their appearance, since that change only exists in the real world, not in-universe.)

 

[Timo]

Actually, we don't really know that since we really don't know the internal mechanics of either.

But again, this does not matter. The mechanics are irrelevant - the only relevant distinction for Worf is in what the weapons achieve. And the sidearm that Worf carries does not achieve more than the one that Archer carried, even though both achieve more than the guns that came before (real slugthrowers or the plasma guns we saw in action).

I guess we can postulate some unseen way by which phasers trump phase weapons so that Worf would dismiss the latter. But that doesn't sound advantageous to postulating that Worf meant that phase weapons, aka phasers, came to being in the 22nd century even if he phrased it oddly.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TIN_MAN]

But the point is that the creators' real-world intention was that they'd always been called phasers in-universe, and that what we see onscreen is a rough approximation of what's "real" in-universe. In other words, Star Trek is not documentary footage of actual events, it's a dramatic recreation of those events, and sometimes makes errors in its presentation. So what's going on in-universe isn't identical in detail to what we see on the screen. (For instance, in-universe, the Kirk and Scott of the Abramsverse look identical to their Prime counterparts, since Spock Prime recognizes them on sight. There's no need to explain the change in their appearance, since that change only exists in the real world, not in-universe.)

You’re preaching to the choir here, I’m aware of this point of view and it’s one I happen to agree with, which is why I have no problem, for example, accepting the deck by deck descriptions in “The Making of Star Trek” (and the FJ plans based on them) as more “true to life” than the contradictory “throwaway lines” from the onscreen dialogue.

But you're missing my point, there are people who do not share our interpretation, and that’s fine, we are not “right" and they are not “wrong”.

The OP’s question was phrased “in universe” and that’s the way I responded. It’s a matter of individual preference and interpretation as to whether Starfleet always used phaser-like tech or whether they used lasers for a while, or some combination of both? The OP assumed that they had not, and that’s perfectly valid.

Just for the record, I’m perfectly happy to ignore the laser references in “the Cage/Menagerie” and pretend they always used phasers, but it’s always a good idea to keep an open mind on these things.

 

[Christopher]

You’re preaching to the choir here, I’m aware of this point of view and it’s one I happen to agree with, which is why I have no problem, for example, accepting the deck by deck descriptions in “The Making of Star Trek” (and the FJ plans based on them) as more “true to life” than the contradictory “throwaway lines” from the onscreen dialogue.

Wow, I can't agree there. The FJ plans have some massive errors of interpretation, like the bizarre choice to put the engine room in front of the impulse engines even though it was repeatedly shown to house the dilithium crystals and thus be adjacent to the warp engines.

But your missing my point, there are people who do not share our interpretation, and that’s fine, we are not “right and they are not “wrong”.

I don't see where you get the idea that either I or FormerLurker was trying to shoot anybody down. We're simply discussing what the creators' intent was. That's not a matter of advocacy, merely of establishing information. Providing information is not an attack, it's an aid. People are free to make their own choices, but responsible choices are based on a full understanding of the facts.

Just for the record, I’m perfectly happy to ignore the laser references in “the Cage/Menagerie” and pretend they always used phasers, but it’s always a good idea to keep an open mind on these things.

Well, another fact to keep in mind is that Roddenberry changed the name for a reason: namely, that the weapons in Star Trek behave nothing like lasers. Laser beams don't look like that, they don't sound like that, they don't have stun settings, etc. So there's no good reason why they would be called lasers in-universe. This isn't a case where the choice is arbitrary, where both terms are equally valid. "Laser" was abandoned because it just didn't work -- the same way that it didn't make sense to refer to the power-channeling crystals as "lithium crystals." In both cases, using the name of a real thing to represent an imaginary thing with different properties was recognized to be a poor choice.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean treating all opinions as equally valid. It means recognizing that opinions should be weighed on the basis of objective evidence and logic rather than clung to out of arbitrary preference. It means being willing to change your mind when the facts and reasoning are against your opinion.

So I've offered the reasons why calling the weapons lasers is a bad or problematical idea. But I have an open mind, so I'm willing to listen to alternatives. Is there any argument to be offered, beyond "Well, that's what they said in the pilot," why it would make sense to call them lasers, despite their complete dissimilarity to actual lasers?

 

[TIN_MAN]

Wow, you’re really not getting my point.

Did it ever occur to you that people can know and weigh the same facts you do and still come to a different conclusion?

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are not in possession of all the facts and only in need of you to enlighten them, whereby they shall see the light and sensibly agree with you.

Dry facts can be interpreted in different ways, therefore it is a good idea to be open to other interpretations because someone might have a take on something that you never thought of before, but if you’re too busy hitting them over the head with facts, then you won’t be listening, and thus miss the opportunity to learn something new.

 

[Christopher]

Wow, you’re really not getting my point.

Did it ever occur to you that people can know and weigh the same facts you do and still come to a different conclusion?

Yes, obviously. That's why I asked if someone can offer an actual case for it. Not just rhetoric, not just ad hominem dismissal of my right to ask a question or express an opinion, but an actual response in kind. If someone has weighed those facts and come to a different conclusion, I'd be interested in hearing their reasoning.

Dry facts can be interpreted in different ways, therefore it is a good idea to be open to other interpretations because someone might have a take on something that you never thought of before, but if you’re too busy hitting them over the head with facts, then you won’t be listening, and thus miss the opportunity to learn something new.

I will never understand people who see the offering of facts as an attack. Facts are food for the brain. They're money for the idea bank. They're the vocabulary of an informed dialogue.

And you aren't offering anything to back up your words. You're spouting hypotheticals but you aren't putting forth anything constructive or useful. I'd love to hear a take I haven't thought of before. I specifically asked for one in my last post. So do you have an actual alternative take to offer, rather than just vague generalizations? If not, then why not step back and give someone else a chance to contribute?

 

[Timo]

Well, the in-universe rationale for accepting lasers as lasers is obvious: nothing in Star Trek behaves in an acceptable manner anyway. Characters and sets alike are made of cardboard, yet we don't have to pretend that Spock gets pinned by a "phrock" when a piece of obvious styrofoam shaped like a rock hits the actor.

Making Pike's lasers an exception to the rule of suspending disbelief sounds particularly disingenuous. Out of all the technologies portrayed in the pilot episode, they play their part the most convincingly, outdoing spacecraft, space propulsion, communications, sensing, data processing and life support in downright realism, in 1960s and 2010s terms alike.

One could even go as far as saying that there is nothing wrong as such with what we see. Lasers appear as beams of light within a dusty atmosphere, travel in acceptably straight lines, spallate material from their target in a bright light show, and are properly employed tactically in both the instances of their use - Joe and pals hold the beam steady against rock and metal, Pike waves his gun a bit against plexiglass (and even seems to aim at an angle that would protect him from possible reflections!). All this is pure serendipity, of course, there being no effort behind it. But it does preempt arguments for dismissing the laser terminology and favoring a fictional alternative.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Actually, we don't really know that since we really don't know the internal mechanics of either.

But again, this does not matter

It actually matters a lot because how things work are really the basic difference between technologies, even comparable ones.

 

[Timo]

But that's observably false in this particular case. Phase pistols and phaser pistols "work" exactly the same, just like diesel and gasoline cars (and nowadays electric ones, too!) work exactly the same regardless of their different engine systems. Worf wouldn't praise phasers for their beautiful theoretical basis, but for their ability to do what phase pistols also demonstrably can do.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

But that's observably false in this particular case.

Not at all, because once again, we don't know how they operate internally. As such, the difference between them could be substantial enough so that Worf could rightfully claim that the latter device was more worthy of note than the former.

 

[Timo]

But why? Because it relies on a more honorable law of physics?

We can rule out basically all meaningful differences right away. There is no observable difference in output power, nor in output modes. There is no observable difference in number of shots fired (either in "rate of fire" or "magazine capacity" terms, no matter how poorly those apply to death rays). User interfaces do not differ, or matter, considering how diverse interfaces purebred phasers already can have - and even the most basic interface qualities, such as size and weight, seem identical.

We (and not the writers) are basically required to invent a practical difference out of whole cloth here (and then also an internal mechanism that would create that practical difference). Which sounds utterly pointless when all the answers to Rasmussen's questions involve dancing on the head of a pin anyway, being ethnocentric (to alien ethnicities to boot, in Worf's case!), and failing to follow a common pattern.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TIN_MAN]

Yes, obviously. That's why I asked if someone can offer an actual case for it. Not just rhetoric, not just ad hominem dismissal of my right to ask a question or express an opinion, but an actual response in kind. If someone has weighed those facts and come to a different conclusion, I'd be interested in hearing their reasoning.

Nobody is dismissing your right to ask a question or express an opinion. But that you see others opinions and ideas as rhetoric and ad hominem dismissals is part of the problem here. It’s a way of devaluing others opinions in your own mind, so your position seems stronger while weakening the others. As long as you persist in such an attitude nothing anyone says will be considered by you as a worthy response.

I will never understand people who see the offering of facts as an attack. Facts are food for the brain. They're money for the idea bank. They're the vocabulary of an informed dialogue.

No one is taking your responses as an “attack”, you’re giving yourself more credit than is due. To paraphrase Spock, “facts are the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it”. The only fact of any real consequence here is that Star Trek is a work of fiction, therefore whether one chooses to treat the final onscreen product as the “real” events, or whether one chooses to pretend that it is just a dramatization of said “real” events, or whether one treats the whole thing from a strictly “real world” production where mistakes are made and then later retconned, is a matter of personal preference, it’s more of an emotional thing rather than an intellectual one, more dialogical than dialectic.

And you aren't offering anything to back up your words. You're spouting hypotheticals but you aren't putting forth anything constructive or useful. I'd love to hear a take I haven't thought of before. I specifically asked for one in my last post. So do you have an actual alternative take to offer, rather than just vague generalizations? If not, then why not step back and give someone else a chance to contribute?

Once again; since anything and everything else I could say will be denigrated by you in the same way everything I (and others) have already said, as “spouting hypotheticals” and “vague generalizations”, there’s little point in continuing this discussion, so just agree to disagree with me and take your own advice and “step back and give someone else a chance to contribute”

I, for one, am done here.

 

[C.E. Evans]

We can rule out basically all meaningful differences right away.

Who's this "we?" Nobody is saying that phase pistols weren't an early precursor to phasers, but that's really the whole point.

 

[Timo]

"We" as in people who observe all that is observable about the phasers and the phase guns and take all of it into account, ending up with the two weapons being equal in all that is observable. If somebody believes in hidden parameters, then that's somebody not included in "us". If somebody can mention further observable parameters that debunk the equality hypothesis, then welcome to "us" and thanks for the help!

Mind you, even if we conclude the two weapons are different, that doesn't make Worf any more correct in his statement, as obviously many aliens had weapons identical to TNG phasers at that point of history already. We have to interpret Worf in any case. I'd just like to see whether that can be done easily or with difficulty, and so far the equality hypothesis appears to make it difficult.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[A beaker full of death]

Now I remember why I don't come here anymore. Thanks, all.

 

[Vandervecken]

Heh while you guys are arguing about phasers and lasers some Klingon is going to cheese* you with a disruptor.






*Like being creamed, only harder.

 

[C.E. Evans]

"We" as in people who observe all that is observable about the phasers and the phase guns and take all of it into account, ending up with the two weapons being equal in all that is observable. If somebody believes in hidden parameters, then that's somebody not included in "us". If somebody can mention further observable parameters that debunk the equality hypothesis, then welcome to "us" and thanks for the help!

Lost me there...

Mind you, even if we conclude the two weapons are different, that doesn't make Worf any more correct in his statement, as obviously many aliens had weapons identical to TNG phasers at that point of history already.

Worf would still be correct if phasers put the Federation on par with them and even ahead in some cases.

 

[Timo]

But when TPTB timidly decided that ENT should feature all the goodies familiar from TOS and TNG, they rather nicely established that phase pistols were already parity tech. Which is quite logical in-universe: before phase guns, Earth does not explore space. With phase guns, exploration commences. Heck, phase pistols can fell Borg Drones, a potentially optimal yardstick as the Borg have roamed space for millennia and encountered everybody worth mentioning.

Worf may be mistaken about the exact date when parity happened - thinking Archer sailed in the early 23rd century, or perhaps believing in some Klingon version of history. If well-informed, though, he should accept that parity happened in the mid-22nd century, when phase weapons emerged and drove fear in the hearts of Klingons of the era.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

But when TPTB timidly decided that ENT should feature all the goodies familiar from TOS and TNG, they rather nicely established that phase pistols were already parity tech.

They all could be considered parity to the laser pistols in "The Menagerie" by that definition, but the Klingons weren't too impressed with phase weapons--dismissing Earth's brand-new phase cannons as being "low-yield" weapons.

Worf may be mistaken about the exact date when parity happened - thinking Archer sailed in the early 23rd century, or perhaps believing in some Klingon version of history. If well-informed, though, he should accept that parity happened in the mid-22nd century, when phase weapons emerged and drove fear in the hearts of Klingons of the era.

I think the easiest explanation is that phase weapons weren't considered phasers.

 

[Timo]

the Klingons weren't too impressed with phase weapons--dismissing Earth's brand-new phase cannons as being "low-yield" weapons.

True enough. But that assessment was made before the guns were fired - and while they clearly did not prove decisive against Duras in "Judgment", they did exactly that in "The Expanse" a bit later. Perhaps Archer's jury-rigged guns were inferior to the properly factory-installed ones of the Intrepid and her escorts?

Beyond "The Expanse", UE Starfleet's precious few ships are equal in firepower to their local competitors. "IaMD" does its best to assert that similar parity in TOS is still a step up in absolute terms, but that's not attributed to a leap in death ray tech as such.

I think the easiest explanation is that phase weapons weren't considered phasers.

Without doubt. But even that one runs into the problem of TPTB so very much wanting ENT to have phasers that what ends up on screen is phasers in practice. So why would Worf, out of all people and beasts, put theory ahead of practice?

Timo Saloniemi