TWOK: Why not just blow up the Reliant?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I watched TWOK last night and it just hit me. Instead of trying to limp away under impulse power, why doesn't the Enterprise simply destroy the Reliant?

I mean, the Reliant was heavily damaged and pretty much everyone on board was dead. So it was in no condition to fight back. It shouldn't have taken much to destroy the Reliant before Genesis has a chance to go off.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Presumably, destroying Reliant would detonate Genesis.

I'm pretty sure if destroying Reliant would have been a viable strategy, Carol or David would have said so.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I watched TWOK last night and it just hit me. Instead of trying to limp away under impulse power, why doesn't the Enterprise simply destroy the Reliant?

There's no guarantee that destroying the Reliant would destroy the Genesis torpedo. It may well survive intact among the ship's wreckage.

It would take something like a warp core detonation to destroy the torpedo, and the matter-antimatter detonation would probably destroy the Enterprise as well.

Maybe if you could beam an antimatter containment pod into the Reliant's transporter room, assuming the Enterprise's sensors were precise enough to locate the Genesis torpedo there, then it would be precise enough to destroy the torpedo.

 

[Qonundrum]

Isn't Enterprise also too close to Reliant? 4000km might not be far enough. Presuming, per previous replies, that Genesis wouldn't have detonated in the process. That's still an awesome question and great observation!

 

[Unnamed Caitian]

It's a Reliant, not a Pinto

 

[Vger23]

Because we needed to have a dramatic end to the movie.

 

[Elder Knight]

At minimum, I would have had some crew member suggest taking over Reliant's computer and having it make the ship take off at max available speed in the opposite direction.

Then, some spoilsport would state that it was too damaged to get very far. And the plot goes on.

 

[Vger23]

At minimum, I would have had some crew member suggest taking over Reliant's computer and having it make the ship take off at max available speed in the opposite direction.

Then, some spoilsport would state that it was too damaged to get very far. And the plot goes on.

At the very least, the Enterprise should have taken an opposite but parallel course away from the Reliant, which was drifting at a pretty good clip. They could have greatly increased their relative separation speed. Retreating at a perpendicular angle was somewhat questionable.

 

[FormerLurker]

At the very least, the Enterprise should have taken an opposite but parallel course away from the Reliant, which was drifting at a pretty good clip. They could have greatly increased their relative separation speed. Retreating at a perpendicular angle was somewhat questionable.

It's possible that direction was the shortest path out of the nebula. If I wanted to get away from something that was going to consume matter until it ran out of a certain amount of viable source material, that's the direction I would go.

 

[Vger23]

Excellent point

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Presumably, destroying Reliant would detonate Genesis.

I'm pretty sure if destroying Reliant would have been a viable strategy, Carol or David would have said so.

This.

Would any 21st century Naval vessel attempt to destroy a nuclear-capable sub and not expect its weapons to detonate?

The best option (not explored) would have been to beam the Genesis torpedo aboard the Enterprise, and attempt to high-tail it to the nearest region where another Starfleet ship was patrolling.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

[QUOTE="TREK_GOD_1, post: 14605900]Would any 21st century Naval vessel attempt to destroy a nuclear-capable sub and not expect its weapons to detonate?[/QUOTE]
Yes, they would not expect the nukes to detonate. Nuclear warheads don't detonate from impact; otherwise, Johnston County, North Carolina would have been nuked in 1961. (The Goldsboro incident. An Air Force bomber broke up and dropped two live nukes in a swamp. Only one has been recovered.) Once built, they are rather inert.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes, they would not expect the nukes to detonate. Nuclear warheads don't detonate from impact; otherwise, Johnston County, North Carolina would have been nuked in 1961. (The Goldsboro incident. An Air Force bomber broke up and dropped two live nukes in a swamp. Only one has been recovered.) Once built, they are rather inert.

Put it this way: if you were in close proximity to a ship with nuclear weapons, would you take the chance and try to destroy it?

 

[Elder Knight]

I thought that Genesis was NOT a war weapon. Wouldn't it have safeguards to prevent accidental deployment?
I suppose that Khan and Co, could have overridden these, but should that be the default assumption?

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I suppose that Khan and Co, could have overridden these, but should that be the default assumption?

There's no need to "suppose" that Khan overided the system as we literally saw him to arm it on-screen. (from about 3:45 in this clip:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

)

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Put it this way: if you were in close proximity to a ship with nuclear weapons, would you take the chance and try to destroy it?

Yes. There has never been an accidental detonation of a nuclear warhead. You can't have a Halifax Explosion or Port Chicago Explosion with nuclear weapons. They are difficult to make detonate.

 

[PCz911]

It's a Reliant, not a Pinto

And THAT is a reference that only a certain demographic will understand.

 

[Beard of Sisko]

Isn't Enterprise also too close to Reliant? 4000km might not be far enough. Presuming, per previous replies, that Genesis wouldn't have detonated in the process. That's still an awesome question and great observation!

4,000 kilometers is roughly the distance from New York to Los Angeles. That nebula looked large enough to ecompass the orbits of several planets.

So it definitely wasn't far enough.

 

[J.T.B.]

Put it this way: if you were in close proximity to a ship with nuclear weapons, would you take the chance and try to destroy it?

I can't speak to today, but in the Cold War that was very much part of NATO naval war plans.

 

[questionable apprentice]

I watched TWOK last night and it just hit me. Instead of trying to limp away under impulse power, why doesn't the Enterprise simply destroy the Reliant?

I mean, the Reliant was heavily damaged and pretty much everyone on board was dead. So it was in no condition to fight back. It shouldn't have taken much to destroy the Reliant before Genesis has a chance to go off.

the anwser: the producers get more money,