...I'm aware of the phaser crews of the TOS era, with the Phaser Control Room actually being featured in ... what was it? "The Changeling?" And while I accept it as canon, and as a decent parallel to modern-day seagoing warships, I don't really understand why such a thing would be necessary on a very advanced starship.
It seems to me that a technologically-advanced civilization such as the Federation should be able to provide for direct-linked firecontrol solutions from control panels on the bridge to the various weapons systems aboard a ship. Even modern-day submarines, for example, fire their torpedoes via a button (used to be a valve) in the attack center in the control room -- not via a command issued to the torpedo room (though maybe Timo or someone better qualified can back me up on this).
Especially when we're talking about linear phaser arrays on something like a Galaxy class starship, which are apparently comprised of thousands of firing elements, any of which can be the source of the beam, what would be the purpose in having a dedicated "phaser room?" Wouldn't it be easier, faster, and cheaper just to have those commands originate from the bridge?
...
::Braces for impact::
No impact, friend. But you see, you and I are coming at this from two different perspectives, and the phrase in question is exactly where those two perspectives clash.
Bermaga did not understand the function of and necessity for a crew. The TOS creators essentially translated the functioning of a WWII ship into space. After all, it was what they (and the tv audience of the time, most of whom were, were married to, or were the children of WWII veterans) knew, and what the audience could relate to.
In that world is was not believable that a ship the size of an aircraft carrier could be heavily automated. I doubt it ever occurred to anyone that it should be (and the M5 made quick work of the idea).
So on such ships, weapons were manned. The bridge couldn't just push a button; each phaser needed a crew. So did the torpedo room(s), transporter rooms, etc.
Now of course, the heroes of the story were the officers. I'm sure the names Kyle and Leslie don't appear in any plot synopses. So Star Trek devolved into the pop culture as "Kirk and Spock beam down to the planet and...," without any thought to the crew or to the many times Kirk observed that he was unable to run the ship with a mere handful of people.
And so it was that by the 1980s, writers and suits (Berman will always fall into the latter category) didn't know how a ship should work. If someone pointed out that a ship needed a crew, they might glibly answer that in the 24th century most of the functions of the crew are automated. We can cut to the chase by showing someone on the bridge push a button, rather than having to show a phaser control room.
So say we accept the theory of automation (though why there were a thousand people on the ship, I can't imagine). If that was actually Berman's intellectual approach to the 24th century (as it in fact was to a rather weakened Roddenberry), then he would have thought through the implications of that. And no one would be saying "fire all phasers."
But that wasn't the case. For Berman, there was simply no conception of a crew - not because he had thought it through as "technology unchained," but because it made it easier to cut to the chase. So rather than think it through, he just ignored the implications. "Fire all phasers" sounds cool. So they used it, regardless of its true meaning or connotations.
In other words, you're right. I agree with you. If they truly wanted to show a ship in which most of the crew were not necessary. But Berman and Braga weren't making that statement. They just didn't know any better.
