Balance of Terror continuity

[Saquist]

They are both named Star Fleet.

Big surprise, since both of them are star fleets. Is the Royal Navy the same organization as the United States Navy because both of them are Navies?

The name of the British Navy isn't Navy, it's The Royal Navy
The name of the American Navy isn't Navy it's United States Navy. Properly shortened by USN.

Starfleet is a name/identifier. It is capitalized to denote a proper name. It is the same name under the Federation as under Earth both led by Starfleet Command. Proper names are expressly used for IDENTIFICATION. These are not nouns but pronouns. In English if there was an attempt to be indefinite with a noun one uses the definite article of "THE" and in writing using lower case. The star fleet (Meaning an indefinite collection of starships)

Starfleet is always capitalized in the script and stands alone with out the definite article and is never, ever used behind the proper name UNITED EARTH.

(Indeed, the world today is full of Royal Navies and Royal Air Forces. The Universal Translator would have a field day coping with those!)

That's the part that makes this...assertion irrelevant. Starfleet has always represented a United Earth Government whether in the Federation or not.

And the argument that NX-01A or NX-01-A is a "holy" registry that should be reserved for ships of a specific name (be it Enterprise or Dauntless) is just about the most idiotic one I've ever heard. There's no logical basis behind it, and no precedent either from the real world or the Trek one.

Since I haven't created an argument for a "holly" registry then I don't have to defend it.

The idea of inanimate objects being incapable of mercy sounds almost as fantastic; I've never come across anything approaching this sort of a limitation in the use of the English language.

Yes, you have. A Metaphor is used to bridge that limitation. We identify such similies as personification of inanimate objects. You are assuming that Spock is using some sort of metaphor when he's actually giving a history lesson. The difference is that I assume in a vacuum until otherwise given "inertia" by the facts.

And it's an irrelevant concern anyway, because there are no plausible alternate explanations to it: the act of fighting a war with primitive ships prevented either the showing of mercy, or the providing of accommodation, and the latter idea is so irrational as to be laughable. Primitiveness of vessels cannot prevent and never has prevented the storing of captives; if there really is lack of accommodation, then prize crews are the solution.

I have given you a plausible alternative.
NASA spaceships frequently limit the capacity of the crew and cargo. The further one must travel the stricter those limitations must be followed.

What makes us think that this was the first contact with the Klingons? Or that we ever saw the war?

The fact there was no War in ENT.
Do you have reason to doubt that it was?

Picard doesn't speak of human first contact, and we never saw or heard of "decades of war" between the Klingons and the humans. The only such war ever mentioned lasted for a couple of days.

He's talking about human first contact.
He's talking about Star Fleet's first contact.
He's Human and Star Fleet and so speaks from that perspective as we all would.

As for decades of war, since when do we actually need to "see" such a war to take the character at his word? Again I can't assume a retrograde error.

Those are valid points. And could have been avoided by designating the NX-01 anything but "starship", because the TNG and DS9 statements about Enterprises were specific to starships.

A registry is a registry.
It's purpose is to ID the vessel. Even without the "starship" qualifier I would still find it in contradiction. It would have to be a significant difference such as starship/shuttle/yacht/liner for me to no find it in contradiction and even then it should still be because I think even today all those classes on Earth use a different set of registries otherwise there's no purpose in the registry if a number conflicts with another fleet class or style.

I wouldn't have minded following the adventures of the starship Endeavor, either. Or the Dauntless for that matter. But really...

Neither would I. I find those names far more original than reusing Enterprise simply because it's a well known name.

This is utter bullshit

I beg your pardon if I have given you the false perception that I am one of your common associates to be spoken to by means of vulgarities. I will maintain a respectful line of communication and I ask that you do so as well.

. VOY only says NX-01A (or NX-01-A) was named Dauntless. This creates no obligations on how the registry or the name, in whole or in part, should be used elsewhere

.

Precedence holds sway.

The Dauntless was supposed to be the first of her kind. Of course she'd feature "1" and/or "A" somewhere in her ID art!

I cannot follow you into random assumptions.
I follow the pattern that came before.

So do e.g. Ardanan Troglytes in TOS. Apparently, 3x human strength is no major advantage in combat. (Which really is intuitively clear: a guy capable of lifting 150 kg can readily be beaten/killed in hand-to-hand by a guy capable of lifting 50 kg, since the use of punches and kicks in combat is more or less independent of strength beyond a certain point, and humans in Trek always fight with punches and kicks. Spock is not impact-proof.)

I think you're reaching to win a small, irrelevant point.
Strength in hand to hand combat is a factor.

But Worf's statement in "A Matter of Time", if taken in the logical context, would establish that phasers were invented in the 22nd century (the question was, "what tech discovery do you appreciate the most"). Which is what we see happen.

Establish the logic by means of a syllogism.
If the logic is sound and I'll agree.

Might be the same thing. But agreed that "The Expanse" need not have introduced AM warheads, just like "Minefield" need not have introduced invisibility devices.

In fact, the episode also says "old style" nuclear warhead.
I don't think they could have made the technology any more clear than that without actually saying fusion or fission.

False. The ship in "The Cage" did not use, show or brag on any sort of weaponry at all. For all we know, she was unarmed, or then armed with plasma guns, or with black hole generators. But since this is Star Trek, the natural assumption is that she packed phasers.

Indeed. I stand corrected. I believed the ship were equipped with Lasers because the pistols were designated lasers by Tyler. Star Fleet Chronology also designates the Enterprise early weaponry as lasers as well which is the source of my assumption.

"BoT" never places any limitations on the past warp power capabilities of the belligerents.

In spite of your implicity the facts show that warp power is superior to impulse and the Romulan vessel is hailed by it's occupants as the Praetors finest and proudest flagship. If the future vessel's power generation was "simple impulse" then logically a hundred years previous Romulan ships should have nothing more than impulse and certainly less than impulse if the term "primitive by our standards" is to be consistently applied. Impulse is current standard, not primitive.

Logically, they should - how else could they remain visually unidentified?

False Logic.
The lack of visual communication does not extend to the lack of visual contact of ships. In truth the visual ship contact is implied by the comment "what does a Romulan ship look like after 100 years)

Spock tells us the Romulans have over come the problems of power generation to make the technology possible therefore the technology did not exist a hundred years ago.

But as per "BoT" dialogue, they shouldn't. "BoT" just represents a phenomenally bad instance of "concept" writing, dropping the wonderful invisibility ball it has when holding onto it would so nicely help explain the other "concept", that of a never-seen enemy.

BoT treats technology as progressive.
ENT treats it as a near constant.
BoT was properly realistic but the writing had to make some rather isolating adjustments for the sake of the suspense of using the Vulcan prosthetic over again to be explained in the script.

So I will say...at least they didn't leave a plothole

 

[Timo]

Starfleet is a name/identifier.

And would be used like that by every Starfleet out there. There's no requirement for them to "respect" the other Starfleets by using some sort of a distinguishing marker on the name.

Since I haven't created an argument for a "holly" registry then I don't have to defend it.

Coward.

You are assuming that Spock is using some sort of metaphor when he's actually giving a history lesson.

Of course. Everybody uses metaphors. All the time. There's no basis on arguing that Spock wouldn't.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that Spock used a metaphor: ships allowed no quarter. From that we can derive various arguments, but "Spock didn't use a metaphor" is an inane one when the fact is that he said "..ships, which allowed no quarter", which cannot be anything but a metaphor.

NASA spaceships frequently limit the capacity of the crew and cargo. The further one must travel the stricter those limitations must be followed.

Irrelevant and also implausible. If nobody had ever seen a Romulan, it cannot have been because it was impossible to provide a bunk for a captured one. It must have been impossible to capture one in the first place. For which the "no mercy" interpretation is a good match, but the "no accommodation" one is a non sequitur.

The fact there was no War in ENT. Do you have reason to doubt that it was?

Huh? How does that answer the question "Why do you think this was the first contact with Klingons?"?

There was no war in ENT, but war followed the first contact with Klingons that Picard spoke of. Hence, ENT didn't portray that first contact with Klingons. It could have portrayed any of the myriad first contacts the Klingons have had with UFP species; they quite clearly had some with both Vulcans and Andorians before the events of the show, for example.

He's talking about human first contact.
He's talking about Star Fleet's first contact.
He's Human and Star Fleet and so speaks from that perspective as we all would.

A wholly unjustified assumption, and akin to claiming that Spock always speaks in riddles or rhyme.

Picard's perspective is wide, that much is established in the sum total of TNG. Moreover, in this particular case, Picard is grasping at straws to defend the use of alien infiltration in the upholding of the Prime Directive; he's not obligated to limit his use of historical example to any specific subset, save for the one that serves his argument.

As for decades of war, since when do we actually need to "see" such a war to take the character at his word? Again I can't assume a retrograde error.

But you can assume nonexistent wars?

"Errand of Mercy" would have to be mangled quite badly to have it read that Kirk's Starfleet had fought against Kor's in the past.

I beg your pardon if I have given you the false perception that I am one of your common associates to be spoken to by means of vulgarities. I will maintain a respectful line of communication and I ask that you do so as well.

Oh, okay. But I'll reserve the right to consider "bullshit" a far lesser vulgarity than your common turn of the phrase.

I cannot follow you into random assumptions. I follow the pattern that came before.

Bullshit.

Establish the logic by means of a syllogism. If the logic is sound and I'll agree.

Well, I don't really do requests. But I can present a case of sorts. And what we have here is three people answering a single question. Each of them takes a different tack at answering it. The diversity allows for multiple interpretations of what was originally asked, how the question was interpreted, and what was meant by the answer. Which is why Worf's answer is one out of the many logical possibilities.

The question: "What do you see as the most important example of progress in the last two hundred years?"

Riker's take: "I suppose the warp coil. Before there was warp drive, humans were confined to a single sector of the galaxy."

Worf's take: "Phasers. There were no phasers in the 22nd century."

Crusher's take (which came before the question and prompted it): "They hadn't perfected quarantine fields. You probably saw some surgical masks and gloves."

Crusher mentions a technology that had not yet come to be aboard a 22nd century vessel. Riker, OTOH, mentions a technology that preexisted (even by the assumptions at the time of writing "A Matter of Time") but underwent development within the relevant 200 years and thus was an important example of progress.

Worf's reply would seem to be the same as Crusher's: a technology came to being after the earliest timepoint specified in the question. But that timepoint is 200 years before the 2360s. Plenty of the 22nd century left after 2160 for the introduction of the relevant technology. And if we don't want to give Worf that fudge factor of ten years out of sheer charitability, we can say he spoke of progress made on phasers, in addition to referring to the invention of phasers. The latter kicks in at the specified date, the former echoes Crusher's original prompting.

At no point does any of the people involved require that the progress discussed be a new invention or a technology. So everybody is making assumptions, and "Rasmussen" is of course taking it all in with eager nodding, caring not one iota about whether the answers are "correct".

So the logic is not in the content or syntax of the questions or the answers. It lies in the setup: multiple interpretations are inherently possible, and we can always pick the one that satisfies our continuity urges.

In fact, the episode also says "old style" nuclear warhead.

Which is quite interesting, especially in connection with Spock's saying that the atomic weapons used in the conflict were primitive. This allows for two interpretations:

1) nuclear warheads and atomic weapons are "primitive" and "old style" and thus no longer in use
2) nuclear warheads and atomic weapons come in "primitive"/"old style" and "advanced"/"modern" variants

The latter interpretation, quite sound as such, would tend to establish Kirk's own weapons as atomic and nuclear. Which of course is always possible, because "atomic" is a word up for grabs nowadays because it no longer refers to things nuclear (indeed, the proper use nowadays would be in connection with chemical reactions only), and "nuclear" might very well be the power behind Kirk's phasers.

If the future vessel's power generation was "simple impulse" then logically a hundred years previous Romulan ships should have nothing more than impulse

Here you go again, making baseless assumptions. To which I can only say, "bullshit".

The lack of visual communication does not extend to the lack of visual contact of ships. In truth the visual ship contact is implied by the comment "what does a Romulan ship look like after 100 years)"

True. Which is why my intention was to say that "Balance of Terror" was poorly, illogically written. Had the writer thought it through, he would have utilized the concept of invisibility to justify the other far-fetched concept of a captiveless, corpseless war.

The internal logic of the episode may be considered sound, of course, with the usual caveats as regards the physical universe vs. the scifi universe (interstellar comets, speeds vs. distances, whatnot).

BoT treats technology as progressive.
ENT treats it as a near constant.

And given the ENT backstory, both takes are logical and mutually consistent. The folks at ENT got interstellar-standard tech handed over in one great package: if the Vulcans didn't volunteer it, the Denobulans and Tellarites and assorted others had it for sale, and the newcomer would quickly find himself with parity tech. From that point on, though, there'd be more linear progress.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Anwar]

The writer of the TNG episode where Picard said that there were decades of war with the Klingons has said that the line was misinterpreted. What Picard meant that there were SEVERAL bad contacts with the Klingons that led to hostilities, not just one bad contact.

 

[Deks]

The writer of the TNG episode where Picard said that there were decades of war with the Klingons has said that the line was misinterpreted. What Picard meant that there were SEVERAL bad contacts with the Klingons that led to hostilities, not just one bad contact.

And Enterprise (NX-01) obviously had a series of bad contacts with Klingons.
Despite Archer's best intentions, the Klingons virtually ALWAYS treated him and StarFleet as enemies.
They even 'REWARDED' his actions (that saved the Klingons on at least 2 separate occasions) by throwing him into prison.

Even after Archer returned Klaang to Q'onos after NX-01 was launched, well, I remember Hoshi telling Archer that he doesn't want to know what the Klingon told him (obviously nothing good).

 

[BillJ]

The writer of the TNG episode where Picard said that there were decades of war with the Klingons has said that the line was misinterpreted. What Picard meant that there were SEVERAL bad contacts with the Klingons that led to hostilities, not just one bad contact.

I'm sorry... you can't have the writer back-tracking after the fact.

PICARD: It was my error, not hers. Chancellor, there is no starship mission more dangerous than that of first contact. We never know what we will face when we open the door on a new world, how we will be greeted, what exactly the dangers will be. Centuries ago, a disastrous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war. It was decided then we would do surveillance before making contact. It was a controversial decision. I believe it prevented more problems than it created.

Now since the entire line of dialogue is about 'first contact', you can only surmise that the mention of contact with the Klingons was a 'first contact' scenario. And I'm still wondering where the writer got 'decades of war' from to begin with. There had been nothing in Star Trek to lead you to believe there had been decades of war with the Klingons. 'Decades of conflict' would have been a much better choice and wouldn't have painted any future writers into a corner of having to ignore the line.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

It could have been a cold war with numerous little brush fires along the way.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

PICARD: It was my error, not hers. Chancellor, there is no starship mission more dangerous than that of first contact. We never know what we will face when we open the door on a new world, how we will be greeted, what exactly the dangers will be. Centuries ago, a disastrous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war.

Now since the entire line of dialogue is about 'first contact', you can only surmise that the mention of contact with the Klingons was a 'first contact' scenario.

Picard didn't say "A disastrous first contact". He only said "Disastrous first contact". There was no "a". That is an important difference.

 

[Saquist]

The writer of the TNG episode where Picard said that there were decades of war with the Klingons has said that the line was misinterpreted. What Picard meant that there were SEVERAL bad contacts with the Klingons that led to hostilities, not just one bad contact.

I can't simply assume the character Jean Luc Picard, archaeologist and historian, was wrong.

It is possible he means skirmishes, yet look at this perspective from ENT. The show does little to show any particular poor relations with the Klingons. In fact they seem to have a standard line of communication.

I will also make the claim that ENT should have had first contact with the Klingons well after the Romulan War by reason of a progressively expanding sphere of influence.

The Romulan War should have been at the first part of the 22nd Century, some 50 years after warp was discovered where technology was still in it's infancy.

The Klingons should not have been part of the human knowledge by this point. They should have been far too distance for the early earth ships to reach and their technology should be more primitive than Earth's or a step behind.

First Contact with the Klingons should have been 50 years later. Frankly that the Earth encountered all these aliens in it's small local cluster of stars with warp tech implies that Earth should have been contacted long before it reached the tech of FTL. The Andorians, the Vulcans, the Terilites, Orions, the Kingons and the Romulans, Ferengi, Borg and many more than ENT encounter doesn't make for the lonely place that Earth's starcluster should have been

I believe that it should have been a Vulcan dominated cluster for the last 2400 years. Vulcan colonies should be everywhere to a distance of at least 60 ly. I believe Romulus and Remus are one those colonies.

It could have been a cold war with numerous little brush fires along the way.

Indeed and that is how Star Trek VI's plot makes it appear which comes before Picards statement on our real timeline.


---------
@BillJ

That's not what I would label "disastrous"

 

[BillJ]

PICARD: It was my error, not hers. Chancellor, there is no starship mission more dangerous than that of first contact. We never know what we will face when we open the door on a new world, how we will be greeted, what exactly the dangers will be. Centuries ago, a disastrous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war.

Now since the entire line of dialogue is about 'first contact', you can only surmise that the mention of contact with the Klingons was a 'first contact' scenario.

Picard didn't say "A disastrous first contact". He only said "Disastrous first contact". There was no "a". That is an important difference.

Actually he says, "a disastrous contact with the Klingon Empire" while talking about why they currently handle 'first contact' situations they way they do.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Saquist, Timo: ENOUGH.

Good gravy, I've seen five-year-olds quarreling on a kindergarten playground who show more maturity and civility. Now all you're doing is trying to get each other's goat (you know, trolling) or repeating yourselves ad nauseum (spamming).

Since you both are apparently incapable of agreeing to disagree, I declare this snotty pissing contest of duelling anal-retentiveness to be OVER. If you continue to post in this thread, I strongly suggest you lose the smug condescension, name-calling, goading, and last-word-itis. If you can't bear to conduct yourselves in a civil manner, take your sandbox fight to PM or chat.

Crimony.


And now the rest of you are nit-picking over something Picard said about Klingons in TNG?? What the hell forum is this, anyway?

 

[BillJ]

@BillJ

That's not what I would label "disastrous"

I didn't label it as disastrous, Picard did.

 

[Saquist]

@BillJ

That's not what I would label "disastrous"

I didn't label it as disastrous, Picard did.

If 2151 was when ENTERPRISE was launched and then the NCC-1701 as launched in the 2240s then that's 90's years of possible contact...and take this into account as well...There was a Klingon Neutral Zone...

Does that imply some conflict?
Maybe even a war...

 

[BillJ]

Does that imply some conflict?
Maybe even a war...

Just because a neutral zone exists doesn't mean a war was fought. No proof exists that a war was fought between the two powers over a bad first contact encounter. Picard directly attributes 'decades of war' to that encounter, which would have to be the Klang incident as depicted in Broken Bow.

Although judging by the context of First Contact, I don't think that the contact we see in Broken Bow was what the writers had in mind.

What was this thread about again?

 

[Saquist]

Does that imply some conflict?
Maybe even a war...

Just because a neutral zone exists doesn't mean a war was fought. No proof exists that a war was fought between the two powers over a bad first contact encounter. Picard directly attributes 'decades of war' to that encounter, which would have to be the Klang incident as depicted in Broken Bow.

Although judging by the context of First Contact, I don't think that the contact we see in Broken Bow was what the writers had in mind.

I'm just saying it's possible but i would concur with the latter.
What's you personal opinion? Between the Romulans and Klingon's whose more hostile and more likely to start a war?

 

[BillJ]

I'm just saying it's possible but i would concur with the latter.
What's you personal opinion? Between the Romulans and Klingon's whose more hostile and more likely to start a war?

Depends honestly. Hostility isn't the only ingredient needed to make a war stew.

MARA: We have always fought. We must. We are hunters, Captain, tracking and taking what we need. There are poor planets in the Klingon systems, we must push outward if we are to survive.

This line is from The Day of the Dove, so it seems the Klingons are actually resource poor. Which means they have to pick and chose their targets carefully. Klingons seem to push their boundaries because they seemingly have a need. We just don't know enough about the internal workings of the Romulans to know how likely they are to engage in a full scale war.

 

[Saquist]

I'm just saying it's possible but i would concur with the latter.
What's you personal opinion? Between the Romulans and Klingon's whose more hostile and more likely to start a war?

Depends honestly. Hostility isn't the only ingredient needed to make a war stew.

MARA: We have always fought. We must. We are hunters, Captain, tracking and taking what we need. There are poor planets in the Klingon systems, we must push outward if we are to survive.

This line is from The Day of the Dove, so it seems the Klingons are actually resource poor. Which means they have to pick and chose their targets carefully. Klingons seem to push their boundaries because they seemingly have a need. We just don't know enough about the internal workings of the Romulans to know how likely they are to engage in a full scale war.

That establishes a motive for a possible Klingon war...
So what was the provocation of the romulan war?

 

[BillJ]

That establishes a motive for a possible Klingon war...
So what was the provocation of the romulan war?

Well... if you throw all the pieces from all the various shows into a pot: I'd say they were looking to pick off Vulcan's small time allies to leave her standing alone when it came time to invade.

The Romulans just didn't expect the Earthmen to kick their pointy-eared asses all the way back to Romulus.

 

[Saquist]

I think it was territory.

 

[BillJ]

I think it was territory.

If it was solely territory, then why didn't they invade in the alternate 24th century from Past Tense(DS9)?

They were already at Alpha Centauri?

 

[Anwar]

The Romulans seem to have this "Manifest Destiny" mindset, I'd say that's as good a reason as any.