Green was a genocidal madman, true, but he apparently had nothing to do with the ECON. His areas were ecoterrorism (IAMD) and extermination of radiation victims (Demons/Terra Prime). His allegiance, such as it was, was only to himself.
How Did Earth Get United?
- Thread starter RookieBatman
- Start date
Green was a genocidal madman, true, but he apparently had nothing to do with the ECON. His areas were ecoterrorism (IAMD) and extermination of radiation victims (Demons/Terra Prime). His allegiance, such as it was, was only to himself.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
More like he'd be AGAINST the Econ, which is pretty much what I said.
And forget Enterprise.
I'm truly sorry if you don't grasp the concept of continued simple nuclear use until well into the 22nd century and even 23rd. It's little episode called Balance of Terror.
Except that Star Trek tells us that many did indeed die, or Q's courtroom would never have happened.
That would be YOUR error, not mine. Voyager states it was the first manned mission to Mars in a dedicated ship to get to Mars, whether you like it or not. And nobody who has artificial gravity is going to send a manned mission to Mars without using it. The astronaut we saw, was floating around in zero-g. Mars was uninhabited, not already colonized, whether you like it, or not. Voyager tells us Mars isn't colonized until the 2100s, whether you like it or not. So no, there is NO anti-gravity in the 2030s and a good chunk beyond. Nor are planets already being colonized. Whether you like it, or not.
The Apollo program not visible in ST4? Are you nuts? Have you seen the hospital Checkov was brought to? The ship he fell off of? The computer that Scotty drew up the plans for transparent aluminum on? More than half of all the technologies you saw, were that far ahead because of the Apollo program.
And that's just ffing indirect technologies.
Artificial gravity... boy! You have NO IDEA how utterly and totally the world will change having that, the hospitals for one thing, the ships. But most notably there would be no HELICOPTERS! No airplanes like you and I know anymore. All of that would be gone replaced with speedy, and cheap planes and flying craft based upon artificial gravity. Hell, there will probably be anti-gravity using flying "cars".
Not a single shred of it could be seen anywhere in ST4. It was simply our world, our time, and no exotic technologies around anywhere.
Your brilliant, I gotta give you that. Brilliantly thickheaded, but still, it's brilliant. In one breath you claim later than first manned mission to Mars, at a time when artificial gravity ships left and right zipping about, colonizing planets everywhere, actually happend, a mission with no artificial gravity, no anti-gravity, no impulse-like engines. Yep, NASA decided to make a mission in archaic pile of junk to an already colonized planet - although no such colonization was shown anywhere, when they could have sent a ship that easily could have avoided the gravity elipse that swallowed that mission whole. A ship where the Astronaut wouldn't be desperately, slowly, floating about in Zero-g. Yep, a heavily government funded ship is a slow, not using gravity, archaic pile of junk, while left and right private ships zip about using artificial gravity, waving at the foolish not gravity using, floating astronauts in their slow as snails ship.Yep, uhuh, can so see that happen.
Oh, sure, just not as different as you seem to think.
Wrong again, and once again you delete where I proved the above already wrong.
Wrong again. We know the mission seen in Voyager is the first manned mission as the episode tells us. The planets were not visited in the 1980s, least of all using artificial gravity ships. We got artificial gravity ships, there's no missions to mars, there's hotels in space, hotels on the moon, etc. etc. The moment you got artificial gravity, going beyond the Earth becomes cheap. Cheap that exploitation becomes possible. Everyone with even a little bit of money can buy tickets to the moon, to Mars, and what not. And New Berlin would have formed right there.
Which is the entire point, isn't it? Why the 40-year-old gap? Because Earth was still recovering and didn't have the population required to build off-planet colonies. The only missions to space to mine asteroids and such, would not be full fledged growing colonies but small numbers of people going back and forth with loads of oar. Given our numbers increasing, and with your technology golden-age Star Trek version those numbers would probably be even higher, 600 million dead would still leave more than our present day numbers. Getting off the planet as soon as possible would be a thing of necessity as it still would be overpopulated, yet they didn't and probably couldn't. So we're back to: the real number of people having died, is much greater than numbers given.
It wasn't until much later when the number of people on Earth reached sufficient numbers, a permanent proper base/colony existed on the moon, that colonization of other planets became viable.
No, that would be you, you mentioned the Titan II, not I, I simply used your mentioning of it.
No, actually, because you as I, apart from him moving to Alpha Centauri and then what happened in Metamorphosis know what happened to him. We don't whether he got rich or not, we don't know whether he retired to a tropical island before moving to Alpha Centauri or not. We don't know jack shit about Cochrane.
That's an amazingly good one. Maybe you should reread what your wrote there, friend, because you're pretty much saying that use the evidence properly.Indeed, it rather proves you, who apparently does things differently, is the one who does things ass-backward, as your ideas have shown. Like a mission to Mars in 2030 with technology 50 to 60 years out of date.
I must accept the "right answer" beforehand, and then iteratively make up all missing evidence, or delete all evidence contrary to the "right answer"
Yeah, that would be ass-backward.
No, I didn't, not even a little bit. But then, that's the problem with people who can't read.
No, I don't fight that, you do. You seem to be stuck on a version of Star Trek's history despite evidence in Star Trek to the contrary.
??? Technologies we can barely dream about? Most of the technologies on Star Trek we're already starting to build, or research is done into them. Hell, at the moment there's multiple researches in a power source that makes matter/anti-matter annihilation look pathetic in comparison - it's called Zero Point Energy. (Yes, it actually exists, it isn't just a term Stargate SG-1 dreamt up.)
Except of course, that I never claimed any of those things didn't happen. In fact, you are the one who has pretty much said that Q's courtroom didn't really happen. Oh, in some tiny little country somewhere (completely disgarding the dialogue that was all about us in our entirety and globally, but eh), but not REALLY.
The numbers instead, I said were just a subset by some certain criteria and official number - and thus in some ways correct - just that there were even many more. Just like our official number of the people having died in WWII doesn't even come close to the real number that died during it.
Last edited:
Well, let's be honest. The real reason VOY never mentioned stuff like the Eugenics Wars and stuff is because in "Future's End" they wanted to make the present they were visiting as close to reality as possible for the time the episode aired. And even though past canon said the Eugenics Wars were happening then, in real life they weren't. If they had portrayed the present day as ravaged by war the common viewer would tune in and go "WTF? There's no genetics war happening now!".
Same reason they didn't use nukes and stuff in ENT even though BoT said so: In real life we had already advanced beyond Atomic (not Nuclear) weaponry so it wouldn't make sense for us to be using them as if they were the pinnacle of existing weapons tech in the 22nd Century.
Same reason they didn't use nukes and stuff in ENT even though BoT said so: In real life we had already advanced beyond Atomic (not Nuclear) weaponry so it wouldn't make sense for us to be using them as if they were the pinnacle of existing weapons tech in the 22nd Century.
Don't be absurd. You'l only lose what little credibility you have left around here.
If you want to say that the Romulan War was fought with nuclear weapons that were primitive from the 2260s viewpoint, please go ahead. That's what the episode actually says - the so-called "right answer" which you should always strive to embrace.
If, however, you want to say that the Romulan War was fought with Titan IIs and therefore the 2050s combatants must have been using Titan IIs as well, then you'll simply be laughed out of the court. And that doesn't require the court to be affected by billions of dead.
Sorry, but that's not Star Trek. That's the little voices in your head talking. Please rewatch the episode or read the transcripts.
You are of course free to invent characteristics for the Trek universe that aren't contradicted on screen. You are not, however, entitled to invent things that are in contradiction of what is stated. If your imagination proves insufficient in accommodating the solidly coexisting Trek facts that Q's court existed and WWIII killed 600 million, then you just have to turn in your Spock ears and leave the room. There is no place for your kind here.
Except that it doesn't. Why can't you get even the simplest facts right? I mean, the episode transcripts are there for everybody to read nowadays. You simply have to learn to read before you type.
Putting your fingers in your ears and singing loud doesn't help, you know. What you claim doesn't become any more true through repetition. It's firmly established that interplanetary travel was not only reality but old news by 1996, although it is not established whether the fact that the ships used back then had artificial internal gravity was crucial in allowing them to reach the planets. I'd guess it should be, but it's possible that gravity plates on the floor are a separate technology from that which allows your ship to float off the planet.
Stop making a fool of yourself. Those things are explicitly not true in the Trek universe, no matter how likely they might be in ours. Completely different universes, remember.
I find that rationalization quite dubious. "The population required" is frankly an absurd limitation for a space colony, because even the most beleaguered post-apocalyptic society could always spare the at most a few thousand people involved in the colonization effort as the actual colonizers. And the resources needed for asteroid mining missions would not be markedly less than those for a Mars base - probably the opposite, actually - save for those irrelevant thousands of actual settlers.
Irrelevant. It was your argument that Trek 2050s nuclear warfare must be no more advanced than our universe's 1980s or 2000s, from which it is reasonable to deduce that you'd rather see Titan IIs than the super-rockets Cochrane had, preferably also in 1980s quantities. Which is silly enough to justify a bit of levity (such as "they used Saturn V for ICBM").
You missed the point, which was that Cochrane would have been rich already well before the events of ST:FC if he could work magic like that on the 1980s/2050s hardware. He'd never have to eke out a living in Montana woods.
Only in the real world. But once again, you miss the obvious: we're dealing with fiction here. And thus basically everything becomes its exact opposite. We know the outcome for absolute fact, and we know half the evidence. We must make up the missing evidence to fit the outcome - and if it conflicts with what we consider reason, we must abandon reason and substitute creativity in its place.
Otherwise, it's bye bye to the official Spock ears.
So what did you want to say? Try saying it in a language other people speak, too, or else you will simply be ignored.
So you deny you want to contest the 37/600 million figure? Then you are either backpedaling, confused or lying. I can accept the first, you know, without any need for getting adversarial about it.
We already have those two figures, separated by an order of magnitude. Isn't that where you already get the dichotomy between "official" casualties and "real" ones?
Timo Saloniemi
Actually, that episode said that 'primitive atomic weapons' were used - *during the Earth-Romulan War*. That wasn't shown in ENT.
Although, weren't the original missile-like torpedoes (that the NX-01 used) supposed to be nuclear?
Actually, that episode said that 'primitive atomic weapons' were used - *during the Earth-Romulan War*. That wasn't shown in ENT.
Although, weren't the original missile-like torpedoes (that the NX-01 used) supposed to be nuclear?
It's just an example of how stuff done in TOS had to be changed for ENT because it no longer made sense from our present day POV. We've already advanced beyond Atomic weapons today so why would they be using them in a future war?
The spatial torpedoes were supposed to be more nuclear in nature but it's still a TOS canon violation because it's not atomic.
Actually, that episode said that 'primitive atomic weapons' were used - *during the Earth-Romulan War*. That wasn't shown in ENT.
Although, weren't the original missile-like torpedoes (that the NX-01 used) supposed to be nuclear?
It's just an example of how stuff done in TOS had to be changed for ENT because it no longer made sense from our present day POV. We've already advanced beyond Atomic weapons today so why would they be using them in a future war?
The spatial torpedoes were supposed to be more nuclear in nature but it's still a TOS canon violation because it's not atomic.
Why do you think that we've advanced beyond atomic weapons today?
The U.S. alone still has several thousand atomic weapons and probably will have for the forseeable future.
There is no difference between "atomic" weapons and "nuclear" weapons.
They are different terms for the same class of weapons.
There are two kinds of nuclear or atomic weapons.
Fission and fusion.
Early World War II era nuclear weapons and those built by the North Koreans (and probably Iranians) are fission weapons.
They work by causing a chain reaction of atoms splitting in either Uranium 235 or Plutonium.
Most modern nuclear weapons are fusion weapons. They work by using high temperatures to fuse hydrogen into helium. Which is why they are sometimes called hydrogen bombs, H bombs, or thermonuclear weapons.
But.
Even modern fusion weapons require fission triggers to generate the temperatures necessary to produce the fusion reaction.
In fact, the most modern nuclear weapons use an additional fission reaction AFTER the fusion reaction to increase power dramatically.
They are called "fission-fusion-fission" warheads.
There has been research into building fusion warheads that do not require fission triggers but either use very powerful conventional explosives or lasers to trigger the fusion reaction, but they are a ways off.
A fusion warhead that didn't require a fission trigger would be the ultimate "clean" nuclear warhead with the explosive force of a nuclear detonation but very little radiation produced of any kind.
Like I said, all TOS mentions on this topic is that atomic, or nuclear, or whatever the fucking hell they are called, weapons, were used IN THE EARTH-ROMULAN WAR.
Since ENT never showed us that war onscreen, there is no violation of anything at all.
doublegood
Fleet Captain
Guys, I use atomic weapons all the time, and there is definitely a difference between atomic and nuclear.
No, atomic and nuclear refer to the same types of weapons.
Both terms are accurate to a degree.
Atomic weapons by their nature involve reactions at the level of the atom as opposed to chemical explosives which involve reactions at the molecular level.
Nuclear weapons refers to the same as atomic weapons but is generally considered more accurate due to the fact that the reactions take place primarily in the "nucleus" of atoms, thus "nuclear".
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Except that it showed us such a primitive nuclear weapon, and it was a simple fission bomb. But you know, eh.
You're a moron. You're the one who brought up the Titan IIs, not me, but yeah, now I'm apparently claiming Titan IIs were used for ship to ship weapons.
No, YOU go do that, and stop listening to the voices in your head, because there aren't any in mine. Then go back and read my previous points, and try to used that brain of yours. Make note on Picard and Data never once challenging Q on this being just a minority case and the majority of the time was disgusted by what happened in these court rooms themselves. Notice how they're discussing and not challenging Q's claims on what was removed from the legal systems throughout humanity.
Go do that yourself.
It's firmly established with ST4 that no artificial gravity existed in the 1980s.
It's firmly established with Voyager's episode about the Mars Mission there was no artificial gravity in the 2030s.
It's firmly established with DS9's Past Tense that no artificial gravity existed in the 2020s.
You might not like it, but it's still true.
The only thing from TOS that claims there were artificial gravity ships in the 20th century is Space Seed and the Eugenics Wars: called WWIII by the way. What does DS9 do? Takes the EW and puts them in the 22nd century. It no longer happens in the 20th century. Voyager's Future End shows there was no EW in the 1990s following DS9, but the real coup de grace: the "Nuclear Holocaust"/WWIII mentioned in TOS Bread and Circuses in the 21st century (and followed in all the other Star Trek shows), should pretty much tell you even TOS doesn't go by Space Seed anymore.
There are two timelines mentioned, really, very quick artificial gravity (and genetics) in the 20th century in Space Seed.
Much slower developed technology everywhere else including TOS.
You really like to pick and choose do you? Pick from one pile one moment, pick from the other the next. TOS, TNG, DS9, and even that pile of junk Enterprise, shows plenty of commercial endeavors by humans. They aren't gone from humanity, even if going by some quotes they're completely gone by 24th century.
A space colony would not be populated by a few hicks, they'd be populated by the best and the brightest, just like off-world mining would be done by the best and the brightest. Earth can spare a few of them for off-world mining, but not thousands and that multiple times, because it desperately needs them to help clean up and rebuild the Earth.
Yeah, levity, maybe you should have used your brain and your eyes instead. You see, if you had read, you would have found that I repeated multiple times over in post after post:
"The ICBM used doesn't matter."
"The ICBM used doesn't matter."
"The ICBM used doesn't matter."
"The ICBM used doesn't matter."
Let me repeat that again for you: "The ICBM used doesn't matter."
It's the warheads that matter.
Cochrane would have been rich regardless if the world was fair and judged and rewarded his abilities fairly. It doesn't matter one little bit either way.
That is utterly ridiculous.
"Let's make up missing evidence."
That's the most ridiculous pile of bullshit I've ever heard. I understand now how you can claim things flat out contradicting things that are on screen. You just made up your own on screen facts, and completely disregard anything that contradicts your point of view.
There's no debating with someone like that. Whenever there's evidence that contradicts your view, you just unilaterally toss it out the window and dream up your own "canon" evidence - there a victory for creativity!
I'm done debating you, welcome to my ignore list.
Last edited:
The "fission"/"fusion" thing is still enough of a difference that it had to be changed for ENT. Why would they be using weapons from our past in a future war?
The episode did not actually show us the weapon. The Romulan Commander orders one to be deployed - and we see the resulting explosion - but we don't actually see the bomb itself.
It could be whichever term used to refer to the devices is fashionable in the 23rd century.
In "The Doomsday Machine", Kirk and Spock use the term "H bomb" which is also seldom used as a term for "fusion weapon" today.
Similar threads
