2166 According to Spock

[Anwar]

Atomic weapons are the ones that only used fission, while later ones used fission and fusion. Since Spock said "Atomic" only, then that means that they didn't have the fusion ones and their weapons were less advanced than our tech NOW.

And again, seeing that the TOS Ent was basically unmaneuverable that means that their ENT ships would be even more brick-like. It just all doesn't make for interesting TV in terms of visual battles.

 

[Herbert1]

Antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion proposes the use of antimatter as a "trigger" to initiate small nuclear explosions; the explosions provide thrust to a spacecraft. The same technology could theoretically be used to make very small and possibly "fission-free" (very low nuclear fallout) weapon (see Pure fusion weapon). Antimatter catalysed weapons could be more discriminate and result in less long-term contamination than conventional nuclear weapons, and their use might therefore be more politically acceptable.
Igniting fusion fuel requires at least a few kilojoules of energy (for laser induced fast ignition of fuel precompressed by a z-pinch), which corresponds to around 10−13 gram of antimatter, or 1011 anti-hydrogen atoms. Fuel compressed by high explosives could be ignited using around 1018 protons to produce a weapon with a one kiloton yield. These quantities are clearly more feasible than those required for "pure" antimatter weapons, but the technical barriers to producing and storing even small amounts of antimatter remain formidable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_bomb

This sounds like this is still an atomic weapon to me.

 

[Anwar]

More like the logical progression of fusion weaponry, not fission-based weaponry. Since Atomic relies on fission, it's not an atomic weapon.

 

[The Badger]

Both fission bombs and fussion bombs are atomic/nuclear. Spock, by referring to them a primative, might have been indicating that in Kirk's era Starfleet no longer used them, replaced perhaps with antimatter warheads.

Atomic and Nuclear are the same thing, a general name given to any weapon in which the explosion results from the energy released by a reaction involving atomic nuclei, either by fission—of uranium or plutonium; or, fusion—of a heavier nucleus with two lighter hydrogen ones.

Agreed. In terms of weaponry the words 'atomic' and 'nuclear' are pretty much interchangeable. The only possible difference is that Sarah Palin might have been able to pronounce 'atomic' properly...

And again, seeing that the TOS Ent was basically unmaneuverable that means that their ENT ships would be even more brick-like. It just all doesn't make for interesting TV in terms of visual battles.

Well, it's true that the TOS Enterprise didn't pull off any fancy maneuvers on screen, but that was probably more to do with the practicality of filming than anything else. Hey, even the ultra agile Millennium Falcon does little more than pull a slow bank to the left in the original Star Wars. I have no problem with the big E being much more maneuverable than it has been portrayed. Indeed the New Voyages/Phase II fan films do present a significantly more agile craft.

 

[Mytran]

More like the logical progression of fusion weaponry, not fission-based weaponry. Since Atomic relies on fission, it's not an atomic weapon.

If fission was used to kick-start the fusion reaction then it would definitely qualify as atomic, irrespective of the semantics about what category these weapons fall into.

In any case, Spock could have been using a 23rd Century colloquialism to describe the "primitive" weaponry of the old war. After all; we might use the term "gunpowder weapons" to describe the guns and other projectile weapons of the 19th and 20th century, even though cordite was introduced in 1889 and replaced the old black powder. Hence when Spock says "atomic" he means it as a catch-all of the general type of weapons used a century prior.

 

[Saquist]

Atomic weapons are the ones that only used fission, while later ones used fission and fusion. Since Spock said "Atomic" only, then that means that they didn't have the fusion ones and their weapons were less advanced than our tech NOW.

And again, seeing that the TOS Ent was basically unmaneuverable that means that their ENT ships would be even more brick-like. It just all doesn't make for interesting TV in terms of visual battles.

That's a good point.
I believe you're correct.
Very insightful.

 

[Yug]

Atomic weapons are the ones that only used fission, while later ones used fission and fusion. Since Spock said "Atomic" only, then that means that they didn't have the fusion ones and their weapons were less advanced than our tech NOW.

And again, seeing that the TOS Ent was basically unmaneuverable that means that their ENT ships would be even more brick-like. It just all doesn't make for interesting TV in terms of visual battles.

That's a good point.
I believe you're correct.
Very insightful.

The fission/fission+fusion thing is the difference between an "atomic" bomb and a "hydrogen" bomb, and we had the latter by 1952...

But he said "Atomic" and not "nuclear", meaning the tech would have to be equal to what existed in the 1960s but not what we have TODAY.

...but it's all nuclear.

 

[Saquist]

Isn't that a difference of reality and actuality.
I can accept any one who wants to hold to this litteral definition or disregards it.

 

[pookha]

yeah i got that the romulans didnt want to use visual communication to.
the reference is to the negotiation of the treaty.
and also not they didnt have room for prisoners but rather the romulans didnt take prisoners and perhaps also destroyed themselves before they were captured.

 

[Yug]

Isn't that a difference of reality and actuality.
I can accept any one who wants to hold to this litteral definition or disregards it.

The reality is that these are weapons that existed at the time of the writers creating the story, the Romulan War exists only in our fictional future... the writers therefore can only advance tech that already existed in the late '60's, and "atomics" was a large part of the lexicon of the times, but a catch-all for nuclear weapons in all it's forms. It's really just all semantics as an earlier poster mentioned. The point being no one needs to argue what atomic refers to, because it refers to weapons of that era, which were nuclear, called atomic, dealt with fission and fusion, it's really just that simple.

In the context of the story, those devices were considered primitive in the future depicted by Trek, as almost a condemnation of modern 1960's society and the weapons arsenal that was built to protect our freedoms at the end of a sword. Distrust and fear that our way of life was constantly endangered and we must now hide behind a fence of nuclear proliferation to maintain it is contrasted against the peaceful "Federation" of Star Trek's utopian future as grown beyond futile "barbaric" warfare. The Romulans represented those old enemies and new fears, the Romulan War is the Federations "Great War". The Neutral Zone is now the their Cold War. The whole episode is about war dogs not wanting to give up the fight, to feel meaningless in a world without war as was dramatized by the Romulan captain's actions. To be fueled all one's life by hatred and bigotry, he seemed lost and wanted to taste victory once more to feel worthy of his command. But accepted his fate, and realized how wrong he was to hate an enemy he never totally understood. That's the reasoning behind the clever plot device of never seeing each other until that point, it's was a economic metaphor, and a nice twist to the story. The racist xenophobic crew member also mirrored this rage against peace, raised to believe that his ancestors fought and died at the hands of this old enemy never seen but held only in conjecture as a frightening terror capable of terrible "inhuman" deeds. To find that his own crew mate Spock looks like these "heathens" added dramatic suspense in the form of distrust as was a common theme in post WW2 American society. (watch many old Twilight Zones to see that theme repeated over and over) It's allegorical to the real world of the time coming to grips with peaceful existence with the axis powers that not long prior, only two decades before, were hated invaders and feared enemies of our freedoms. (Also mingled with the height of a cold war with the Soviet Union that was playing out at that time, the end of which later themed in The Undiscovered Country) Combatants in a war that claimed lives and changed peoples families and fates forever, etching memories of angst in their minds that would be difficult to erase or alter. It's hard to find acceptance in that kind of transitional paradox. For some who fought against them or were taught to hate that enemy, it's hard to be asked to befriend them after all they've gone through... on both sides. But that's what forwards progress towards peace and the utopian world depicted in Trek as a society living beyond war, or attempting to. Always looking for the peacful solution is what the Federation stands for... in theory. But, the realization that you fought an enemy for so long that wasn't much different to yourself, that's what drafts peace. Or at least one you'd hope for after time.

 

[Saquist]

yeah i got that the romulans didnt want to use visual communication to.
the reference is to the negotiation of the treaty.
and also not they didnt have room for prisoners but rather the romulans didnt take prisoners and perhaps also destroyed themselves before they were captured.

The Romulans lost the war.
They wouldn't get to dictate terms.
At length treaties are offical documents between leaders. There would have to be a way to verify the identity the subjected party and visual communication would have been preferred.

The reality is that these are weapons that existed at the time of the writers creating the story, the Romulan War exists only in our fictional future... the writers therefore can only advance tech that already existed in the late '60's, and "atomics" was a large part of the lexicon of the times, but a catch-all for nuclear weapons in all it's forms. It's really just all semantics as an earlier poster mentioned. The point being no one needs to argue what atomic refers to, because it refers to weapons of that era, which were nuclear, called atomic, dealt with fission and fusion, it's really just that simple.

You're correct of course.
I can only point out that one may strictly confine the story to the definition of the words used.

 

[Timo]

The Romulans lost the war.

Actually, this was never established in TOS.

Nor in later Trek, for that matter. All we ever hear is the vague reference to a "humiliating defeat at Cheron" in "The Defector", but that is neither explicitly connected to the old war, nor explicated to mean that the Romulans lost anything bigger than a single battle.

They wouldn't get to dictate terms.

Yet we never learn that the Neutral Zone would have been dictated by the humans, either. Indeed, it seems to be a feature that inconveniences the human side more than the Romulan one...

As for the "no quarter" thing, the idea that this would refer to accommodations is absurd from the get-go. How could accommodation standards ever affect the issue of whether human, Romulan or ally would see each other? Prisoners could always be taken even if there were no jail cells, and no spaces that could be converted - they would simply have to be executed afterwards if there was no way to keep them aboard. And since the issue would be of some strategic significance, many a skipper might consider executing some of his own folks if that was the way to provide a bunk and an oxygen quota for a prisoner...

However, it would be easy to postulate weapons technology that did not allow the sort of mercy or moderation that would leave live prisoners, or even recognizable corpses.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Anwar]

But what about planetary battles? If all they had were atomic weapons, but still had warp-based technology then they likely had the tech to protect worlds from atomic bombardment and would have had to have fought for them them with actual land militaries/aerospace forces.

Now, if the Romulans had used the Remans as foot soldiers (and potentially other slac races too) THEN it makes more sense they never saw the Romulans since there wouldn't have been any there to begin with.

 

[Saquist]

Actually, this was never established in TOS.

Nor in later Trek, for that matter. All we ever hear is the vague reference to a "humiliating defeat at Cheron" in "The Defector", but that is neither explicitly connected to the old war, nor explicated to mean that the Romulans lost anything bigger than a single battle.

I'll take the implication since they've had only to situations of contact priar to Neutral Zone. The Romulan War and the Tombed Incident. (known as the period of Romulan isolation.

Yet we never learn that the Neutral Zone would have been dictated by the humans, either. Indeed, it seems to be a feature that inconveniences the human side more than the Romulan one...

Since it's treaty and not terms of surrender both sides had to agree. (THIS ADMITTEDLY CANCELS OUT THE NEED FOR VISUAL COMM IF THERE IS NO DICTATION BY THE WINNING PARTY)

As for the "no quarter" thing, the idea that this would refer to accommodations is absurd from the get-go. How could accommodation standards ever affect the issue of whether human, Romulan or ally would see each other?

I think I covered that well enough. Far from absurd in my opinion.

 

[Timo]

Now, if the Romulans had used the Remans as foot soldiers (and potentially other slac races too) THEN it makes more sense they never saw the Romulans since there wouldn't have been any there to begin with.

That would be an attractive way to bring consistency to the issue in light of modern evidence, yes.

It would then presuppose that the Earthlings knew they were dealing with a mercenary or slave race, though, and not with the actual masterminds of the opposing side. Yet the Remans are but a curiosity in ST:NEM, when by all rights they should be more famous than their Romulan masters, at least amongst Earthlings.

This is why I sort of think it should be better to pursue explanations where few or no corpses of any species are left lying around for the humans to identify. Or, alternately or in addition, explanations where the racial identity of the Romulans is well known to many Earth warriors, but kept hidden from the public because of the overruling need to keep relations with the Vulcans amicable.

Both attempts at explanation are likelier to succeed if the Romulan War is a rather small-scale engagement of limited duration. That way, it also becomes understandable that the considerable firepower of Earth's allies wouldn't have played that big a role. It wouldn't have had time to!

I'll take the implication since they've had only to situations of contact priar to Neutral Zone.

In the context of "The Defector", this battle of Cheron could easily have taken place within the past three months or so. All the more reason for its humiliation to be fresh in the memories of the current Romulan leadership!

I think I covered that well enough. Far from absurd in my opinion.

Both the semantics and the logic seem highly dubious. Use of "quarter", singular, is extremely difficult to accept grammatically if accommodations were intended; and I must have totally missed the part where lack of bunking was a rational explanation for not taking even a single prisoner. There are real world cases where prisoners were carried in the cockpits of single-pilot fighters!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mytran]

I never actually considered planetary battles to be part of the Earth/Romulan conflict before now. Interesting...

 

[Yug]

One could wonder if the war was, for the most part, a series of attacks on Federation ships and outposts by the Rommies, while Starfleet only defended themslves from such attacks. The Romulans being the invading force while Starfleet only holding the line. Planetary wise, is it possible the Romulans made any strikes against the Earth itself? Any reference to missions into Romulan space? And therefore the possibilty that Romulus was bombed by Federation forces?

Some could regard the tech involved, on both sides, was more relative to a long distance conflict, firing weapons across entire sectors of space, especially if their torpedos were warp drive equipped. Or maybe short quick attacks; warping in, leaving munition packages or commencing brief surgical strikes, then warping out.

If either side made it to the very center of their respective home bases, one could assume sensors alone could get a fix on what the enemy might look like, especially if Starfleet ever made it to Romulus or at least deep enough into Romulan territory. It would lend to believability that no Romulan was ever seen if the conflicts were fought from expansive distances.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The OP is apparently unfamiliar with the military term "give no quarter" as in "hold nothing back." It naturally has an etymological connection with quartering and quarters but does not necessarily indicate a physical lack of sleeping/living accommodations. It means to fight without restraint and more specifically to take no prisoners even in the event of surrender. This is not a phrasing or usage coined by the writer, it's well known and long established.

I think the idea was that the crudeness of the weapons meant their only effective use was total destruction of the target. In other words, you couldn't mitigate your response by setting/calibrating them in such a way as to inflict minimal damage/casualties as can be done with phasers. You didn't really have the option merely to disable a ship with them, you could only destroy it. That's why there were no captives.

 

[Saquist]

It would then presuppose that the Earthlings knew they were dealing with a mercenary or slave race, though, and not with the actual masterminds of the opposing side. Yet the Remans are but a curiosity in ST:NEM, when by all rights they should be more famous than their Romulan masters, at least amongst Earthlings.

VERY, true.

Or, alternately or in addition, explanations where the racial identity of the Romulans is well known to many Earth warriors, but kept hidden from the public because of the overruling need to keep relations with the Vulcans amicable.

I think TOS showed us the best answer.
The Romulans made wide use of self destruct mechanisms.

In the context of "The Defector", this battle of Cheron could easily have taken place within the past three months or so. All the more reason for its humiliation to be fresh in the memories of the current Romulan leadership!

With that in mind what do you think happened?

Both the semantics and the logic seem highly dubious. Use of "quarter", singular, is extremely difficult to accept grammatically if accommodations were intended; and I must have totally missed the part where lack of bunking was a rational explanation for not taking even a single prisoner. There are real world cases where prisoners were carried in the cockpits of single-pilot fighters!

The definitions support the singular as well as the plural so at some point in the past, maybe even the past 50 years it was at least known to use the singular for housing and living space.

Note: Memory alpha seems to support such conclusion since no captives and no mercy would be extremely tautological.

Personally I can't allow just incredulity to discriminate against and established definition especially in the way that it's delievered and who it's delivered by. I have to allow the word to speak fair by it's context.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The definitions support the singular as well as the plural so at some point in the past, maybe even the past 50 years it was at least known to use the singular for housing and living space.

Note: Memory alpha seems to support such conclusion since no captives and no mercy would be extremely tautological.

Personally I can't allow just incredulity to discriminate against and established definition especially in the way that it's delievered and who it's delivered by. I have to allow the word to speak fair by it's context.

It is tautological, yes. In the context of what Spock is saying, "no quarter" and "no captive" are two ways of stating the same thing. The second is a clarification of the first. In this context, they are synonymous.

As I said above and as the link elaborates, you are correct that the phrase "no quarter" derives literally from the idea that living accommodations will not be provided to the enemy. However, inferring from it that the ships lacked the physical volume to accommodate prisoners is questionable. Again, the intent is more to say that, due at least in part to the crudeness of the weaponry, there were no enemy combatants left alive to be taken as prisoners. It's not like Spock was saying "they would have take prisoners if only they'd had someplace to put them."