Smart Phasers and Dead Switches

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Smart guns are a reality today.
If a new Star Trek show came to be, would the they use similar security systems to ensure authorized personnel could use phaser weapons or would that limit drama and story telling too much?

Also today's smartphones possess dead switch software capable of turning the hardware effectively inoperable.

Another useful tool to prevent cultural contamination and misuse.

All to often technology in the wrong or underdeveloped hands caused some trouble.

Would technology not possessing these features stretch believability too much these days?

 

[Bud Brewster]

Good points! And not only are Star Trek weapons technologically behind in the ways your mentioned -- they aren't even as destructive as today's weapons!

I'm sure we've all thought of this over the years. No matter how hi-tech the weapons on Star Trek are supposed to be, they always look wimpy compared to any real automatic weapon, like an Uzi.

Star Trek weapons always shoot one bright bolt at a time, and the effect of the bolts just leave little burn marks on the victim (with the exception of a few times when the victim was totally vaporized, like in "Wrath of Kahn").

Sometimes the victims die, but usually they don't. And the victims never have those ugly exit wounds that bullets make -- big holes caused by the fact that lead slugs fragment as they go through the body and do more damage on the way out than they do on the way in.

If I'm ever allowed to provide input on the making of a sci-fi movie or TV show which includes weapns, I'll urge the producers to make the guns a step up from the real thing, instead of a step down.

And it won't be a pretty sight, either . . .

 

[Timo]

So basically you are saying that a good weapon makes a lot of noise and creates a mess but achieves little?

The phasers kill when they are required to, and stun when they are required to (except when the user guesses wrong on the nature of the opponent, say, trying to stun a Satarran with a human setting). They don't need thirty bullets to get it done, they don't run out of bullets (except perhaps after slaughtering thousands, as in "Omega Glory"), and they make relatively little noise, although admittedly the muzzle flash is really annoying!

An Uzi can't cut through a wall. Heck, you would have real hard time trying to get it to break a lock on a door, even. I wouldn't recommend using it to remove handcuffs from a person, either. It really is a vastly inferior weapon compared to pretty much everything else, including broadswords...

As for the "smart gun" aspect, we see that it's very difficult to get a phaser to fire in "A Private Little War", yet in "City on the Edge" an untrained operator easily triggers the very same weapon. This would IMHO indicate that the weapons are normally "locked" somehow, and can only be fired after an authorized user unlocks them; in "City", the crazed McCoy just wasn't in possession of his faculties and didn't lock his weapon when parting with it (he's notorious for fumbling with sidearms in other ways as well).

We also know that use of phasers at kill level aboard starships trigger alarms, but only in ST6. Yet all the other cases of phasers being fired at kill level aboard the ship were by authorized personnel, again IMHO indicating that the guns know who their master is.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[drt]

The burning thing started in TNG, original series phasers always disentegrated the victim (I'm trying to remember if we were ever shown a phaser ser to "kill" leave a corpse in the original show, but none come to mind).


An aside: the Tet-derived guns in Oblivion were pretty brutal.

 

[Timo]

In "Omega Glory", Tracey's phasers supposedly left the battlefield littered with corpses, but we don't know what setting he was using. I'd speculate that the TOS phasers already had the "kill by creating a little dark spot in the chest" setting, and Tracey used that to save power, even though Starfleet regulations tell that total vaporize is the most humane way of killing somebody and should always be preferred.

In "Conscience of the King", Anton Karidian did not disappear after being shot at whatever setting it was that Lenore intended to use to kill Kirk. Admittedly, stun would probably be enough to finish off the frail old man; stun is also what the gun would be set at when Lenore stole it from the redshirt. But previously, Lenore had shown enough mastery of phaser settings to get one to self-destruct...

Since alarms didn't go off when the gun was fired, I'd still say "stun" and "Lenore in her excitement didn't get the gun properly switched to kill".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Good points! And not only are Star Trek weapons technologically behind in the ways your mentioned -- they aren't even as destructive as today's weapons!

I'm sure we've all thought of this over the years. No matter how hi-tech the weapons on Star Trek are supposed to be, they always look wimpy compared to any real automatic weapon, like an Uzi.

Star Trek weapons always shoot one bright bolt at a time, and the effect of the bolts just leave little burn marks on the victim (with the exception of a few times when the victim was totally vaporized, like in "Wrath of Kahn").

Sometimes the victims die, but usually they don't. And the victims never have those ugly exit wounds that bullets make -- big holes caused by the fact that lead slugs fragment as they go through the body and do more damage on the way out than they do on the way in.

If I'm ever allowed to provide input on the making of a sci-fi movie or TV show which includes weapns, I'll urge the producers to make the guns a step up from the real thing, instead of a step down.

And it won't be a pretty sight, either . . .

I've always viewed that phasers were as much cutting, drilling, and welding tools as they were weapons. I think this was very much a philosophy behind 24th-Century hand phaser designs in which they were intentionally designed to look a bit more like tools than guns, IMO.

As far as destructive capability, I'd argue that a phaser simply doesn't need to blast a big hole in someone to kill them. "A little burn mark" could be a pinpoint blast that causes massive internal cellular damage that's every bit as lethal as a bullet hitting multiple vital organs.

 

[Timo]

I think this was very much a philosophy behind 24th-Century hand phaser designs in which they were intentionally designed to look a bit more like tools than guns, IMO.

...It's amusing that they in fact end up resembling handheld firearms after all - only not the 20th century type, but the 17th, with the general curved shape and the orientation of the grip.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think this was very much a philosophy behind 24th-Century hand phaser designs in which they were intentionally designed to look a bit more like tools than guns, IMO.

...It's amusing that they in fact end up resembling handheld firearms after all - only not the 20th century type, but the 17th, with the general curved shape and the orientation of the grip.

They could also resemble futuristic ergonomic tools.

 

[Ithekro]

Only the type 2 phasers. The tiny type 1 phasers on the other hand. Slightly larger than a remote for a car.

 

[Bud Brewster]

Okay, sure, phasers can kill and cut down doors and melt through walls and lop off limbs and dispose of a neighbor's yapping dog without leaving incriminating road kill.

But can a crack shot use a phaser to shoot somebody behind a rock with a well-aimed ricochet?

Wait, wait -- I know what you're gonna say. "He wouldn't have to. He'd just vaporize the rock first!

Oh, sure! That's easy. But your buddies won't buy you beer for vaporizing a rock, will they? No, I think not!

 

[Ithekro]

They would if you could melt a rock over him and drop something molten on him.

 

[Deks]

Level 16 or 17 on a Type 2 phaser was stated in TNG by Riker to be able to vaporize an entire building.
This would suggest some impressive fire-power for Phasers.

 

[Timo]

It's not a "press button and building disappears" setting, though - we see Level 16 in action in "Chain of Command" when Worf uses it to drill a tunnel through solid rock, and it just creates said tunnel without removing the mountain.

Supposedly, then, "firepower" with phasers is not something as simple as "more of the same thing", such as in firearms (more bullets per second, bigger bullets per second, more speed for the bullets). Instead, you select some property for the beam that makes it more useful in the application of boring through certain type of material (rock, solid building wall) and then point and shoot. Although to remove a building, you probably need to "paint" with the beam a little bit...

Another thing we should note about Level 16 is that it doesn't create waste heat: the tunnel that Worf creates is more or less immediately cool to touch. The setting that heats rocks is somehow fundamentally different, then.

A third thing to note is that hand phasers only have 16 indicator lights, so Level 16 apparently is the highest setting available. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that it can do no better than create a hole in rock less than a couple of meters wide and deep - we have no solid reason to think Riker was lying about the leveling-of-buildings thing, even if he admittedly was making a threat.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

Yes... but a phaser can be modified to do specific things at specific settings.
Worf probably wanted to make a tunnel, not make the entire mountain disappear.

 

[Ithekro]

I would think there is a width setting of some kind, or some sort of interface with the user for aiming, as we've seen phaser blasts hit at extremely odd angles and without the phaser pointed specifically at the target, just kind of in that direction.

In Kirk's time they were worried about primative cultures handling even their Phaser Is as they might take half the building down.

The Phaser I was considered underpowered for some things...such as the Horta, where they had to come with Phaser IIs to hurt it. Even in The Cage, they expected their weapons to have blown off the top of the mountain, perhaps before they brought down the Phaser Cannon.

Phaser Rifles are something that was generally not needed as the Phaser II is usually powerful enough. They break out the rifles if they need some different types of blasts, oddly specific damage types, or very heavy usage. The last one meaning the Phaser II won't last for long periods, while the rifle is for sustained combat or instances were they expect to use their phasers many times. Phaser sweeps in Deep Space Nine and other places looking for Changelings were done with rifles as they'd been using the thing a lot. So it likely had more specific kinds of settings like the sweeps and bolt functions.

 

[Timo]

The Phaser I was considered underpowered for some things...such as the Horta, where they had to come with Phaser IIs to hurt it.

And that was specifically due to the material the target was made of. Jibes nicely with the idea that power (wattage) is of little significance in phaser warfare, and settings of other sorts dictate how destructive or penetrative or accurate the weapon is.

"Level 16" can take down buildings and drill holes, but it can probably also weaken shields and remove people from existence. Can it also heat rock? Can it stun? I'd claim yes for the former and no for the latter, but there's no real onscreen basis for saying so.

As for the rifles, one of the quoted features is multiple target acquisition, another is gyrostabilization ("Return to Grace"). One wonders whether these are rifle-only features: we have seen hand phasers perform magnificent feats of targeting, including multitargeting ("Cathexis"), and aim true despite the user wavering.

I would very much hesitate to assign any real limitations to what phasers can do. These weapons are wonderfully capable and versatile when used correctly. But dramatically speaking, they often suffer from limitations, ones quite necessary for the drama - and the challenge is to dream up the best possible set of in-universe limitations so that this reproduces the dramatically required shortcomings without painting the phasers as unrealistically primitive weapons, let alone ones needlessly inferior to what we have to day and what our heroes thus also could have tomorrow.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tiberius]

And the victims never have those ugly exit wounds that bullets make -- big holes caused by the fact that lead slugs fragment as they go through the body and do more damage on the way out than they do on the way in.

Not ALWAYS...

 

[Timo]

...In practical terms, an ugly exit wound is the mark of a weak weapon. If anything exits the body, it's by definition wasted energy that failed to do maximum damage.

(Now, "exit" may on occasion be desirable for reasons of stealth or obfuscation, but "ugly" defeats that, too.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YJAGG]

In TNG A Matter of Time Picard was able to deactivate the items stolen by Rasmussen.

 

[Bob Karo]

Good points! And not only are Star Trek weapons technologically behind in the ways your mentioned -- they aren't even as destructive as today's weapons!

I'm sure we've all thought of this over the years. No matter how hi-tech the weapons on Star Trek are supposed to be, they always look wimpy compared to any real automatic weapon, like an Uzi.

Star Trek weapons always shoot one bright bolt at a time, and the effect of the bolts just leave little burn marks on the victim (with the exception of a few times when the victim was totally vaporized, like in "Wrath of Kahn").

Sometimes the victims die, but usually they don't. And the victims never have those ugly exit wounds that bullets make -- big holes caused by the fact that lead slugs fragment as they go through the body and do more damage on the way out than they do on the way in.

If I'm ever allowed to provide input on the making of a sci-fi movie or TV show which includes weapns, I'll urge the producers to make the guns a step up from the real thing, instead of a step down.

And it won't be a pretty sight, either . . .

How many 9mm wounds have you seen?

From what we've seen across the franchise, phasers are more effective in every respect. When properly used, they are capable of instantly stopping an attacker with one hit center mass. I wouldn't trust a rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge to do that. A wide beam setting makes it possible to incapacitate multiple targets at the same time. It's said to have more destructive power than an RPG when used against structures. Not to mention the load out for one landing party is capable of killing HUNDREDS.

From a user standpoint, it's safe to fire without eye or ear protection. Constant beams can be "walked" onto target if the initial aim is off. Spare power cells are small and easily carried. Plus it seems to have few moving parts.

Everything you described about the Uzi makes it harder to use effectively.