Star Trek Insurrection & The Treaty of Algeron

[Computer]

Itjust occured to me that I dont ever recall any indication that the Sona possesed the cloaking technology and we see 2 instances in Insurrection where the federation is using it.

1. Cloaking suits - worn by the Sona and Starfleet officers at the beginning of the movie.

2. The cloaked holoship. (A federation ship)

Was there any indication as to why the Federation had cloaking technology as there was no indication it was the Sonas?

 

[StewMc]

No reason was given, but could be one of number of options:

1) The alliance with the Romulans against the Dominion allowed for some relaxed rules (like the embargo on Romulan Ale being lifted in DS9).

2) The treaty allows cloaking technology to be used for research purposes or some such (doubtful, as could lead the way for a cloaked Federation ship sneaking along the Romulan border claiming to be on a 'scientific mission').

3) The Romulans gave special permission, like the cloak loaned to the Defiant at DS9.

4) The technology did indeed belong to the Son'a.

5) The Feds were going behind the Romulans back.

6) TPTB screwed up.

 

[Computer]

5 and 6 seem to be the most plausible.

 

[cultcross]

possibly a combination of 1) and 3) is a good explanation, that the Romulans are happy to bring in cloaking technology for Federation use knowing that they can control its use and quite possibly easily counter it if it is their own technology, rather than federation researched. It will help the Federation to help them win the war, and should they ever change their mind they'd have the Treaty behind them to back them up. Pretty good deal for both parties really.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Computer said:
1. Cloaking suits - worn by the Sona and Starfleet officers at the beginning of the movie.

This was simply continuing the duckblind technology already seen in "Who Watches the Watchers" (TNG), and used by legitimate Starfleet scientists.

The cloaked holo vessel, ready for moving the Ba'ku, may have been a more secret development: between the Son'a and the rogue Starfleet admiral. It wasn't only cloaked, it was hidden in the lake. If Starfleet or the UFP council knew about it, why wasn't the ship simply in orbit?

 

[Timo]

There no doubt are different categories of invisibility devices, and these holographic duck blinds would be among the most primitive. Holographic trickery was said to be impractical in space combat in VOY "Basics" because a competent adversary would quickly be able to see through the tricks by applying sensors other than Mk I Eyeball; it only worked against the primitive Kazon for a limited time. So a holographic invisibility device probably wouldn't work against a Romulan combat tricorder, and thus wouldn't be covered by the treaty. It doesn't forbid the wearing of camo pants, either, after all.

Granted, holocloaks and holodecoys have some applicability in the battlefield: they briefly fooled Starfleet crack troops in "Siege of AR-558", for example. But holo-invisible starships might not be a priority on the Romulan list of threats to be negated.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[David cgc]

Especially since holograms used as cloaks seem to be old hat to the Romulans. In "Enterprise," the use of the hologram-projecting drone ships late in the series implies that the Romulan "cloaks" back in "Minefield" were actually holographic camouflage. Which neatly solves the discontinuity between that and Spock's amazement at the existence of an invisibility screen in "Balance of Terror." Earlier "cloaking devices" didn't actually render the ship invisible at all, but merely camouflaged it with holographic projections.

 

[Timo]

But what Kirk is amazed about is the ability to fool the Mk I Eyeball. The ships of "Minefield" did that quite nicely already.

And the ship Kirk faces is no better, really: while she cannot be seen by eye, her movements can somehow be tracked by suitable sensors at Spock's disposal.

Still, good point about effective visual camouflage being ages-old in Trek. A treaty attempting to ban that would be much less practical than a treaty that bans certain cutting edge applications only.

Timo Saloniemi