• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Was Earth defenseless?

Of course it wasn't defenseless. What good is a fleet if you obliterate its planets when it's in the Laurentia system? In the real world, we've had ships forever but we've also had forts and bases. In the Trek world, they have ships, space stations, orbital defense platforms, and maybe planetary shields. In episodes, the enemy just gets past them because the ships (our characters) need to take center stage. Unless you're on DS9 when one station kicks a third of the entire Klingon fleet's ass.

The Breen lost an entire fleet doing proportionately minor damage. Martok pointed out that it was a PR blow more than a tactical one. The whole thing though is pretty silly to my eye. Like with the Borg in First Contact, a single torpedo set to maximum getting through should level an entire city. Instead we get blobs of light blowing up shacks and smashing windows. ...Again, it's whatever the story calls for.
 
DS9 shows both sides of the equation, with the white hats attacking fortified black hat positions and vice versa. We see many levels of conflict there: how a single freighter fares against a single small commerce hunter ("Return to Grace"), a protected convoy wards off harassers ("Rules of Engagement" and "Sons and Daughters"), an isolated space fortress fights off starships in small ("Emissary"), medium ("Way of the Warrior") and large ("Call to Arms") formations, individual ships and small formations skirmish (numerous episodes), large fleets clash in empty space ("Sacrifice of Angels"), and invasion forces penetrate into a defended star system ("Tears of the Prophets") and then fight a quagmire battle there ("Siege of SR-558"). All of these form a rather consistent and smooth whole; there are special characteristics to each type of engagement, but nothing much that would make one engagement look silly in face of evidence from another.

...With the single exception of the lack of standoff mass destruction. We know the Cardassians go for it, using very large and heavily defended penetrators for it ("Dreadnought"). We know that raining extinction-level death from orbiting starships is easily achieved in a matter of hours or even minutes if the target is undefended ("The Die is Cast"). But what stops at least a few planetbusting potshots from getting through in the heat of a battle above a defended planet? Say, Earth, or Chin'toka?

With Chin'toka, we can argue that the invaders didn't want destruction but conquest. With the Breen raid, destruction would have been a smart move, though. We could well argue that San Francisco was hunkering under powerful shields, or at least that its individual city blocks and buildings were; perhaps what we saw was the level of destruction one achieves when citykiller warheads detonate against such shields, and the seams leak a little bit? However, if the Breen really meant it, they wouldn't have fired citykillers. They would have fired something that slagged half of California, so that the continent would melt away from beneath the defenders - the sort of destruction we saw in "The Die is Cast" or, say, "Skin of Evil". Aiming at nearby unshielded desert would then destroy the shielded defender.

Shields aren't the full answer, then. But perhaps Earth also has point defense systems that shoot down missile-type weapons, preventing the biggest bangs from penetrating the ground and from causing geology-rearranging effects; the shields may handle airbursts well enough to keep San Francisco safe, even if most of Death Valley gets even deader in collateral damage.

But even point defense interception doesn't explain what keeps heavy phaser blasts from reaching the ground. Here we probably have to argue that phasers don't melt continents except when allowed to dwell for several minutes or hours, which would be impossible with a space battle raging above the defended surface. In "Encounter at Farpoint", Riker likens the fairly mild bombardment of the Space Jellyfish to a phaser attack, suggesting they might not get much worse than that.

How does this all relate to STXI? Nero didn't have bombardment ordnance as far as we know: his flechette missiles worked against starships, but wouldn't have made much of a hole in San Francisco. His drill was a clumsy tool, and probably couldn't even be aimed well without long preparation. He had no other beam weapons in evidence. And it's not a bad bet that his red matter would only have been a practical weapon if deployed with some precision; we see that when it reacts in empty space, the results are far from destructive (to anything besides the fabric of the universe).

The question here really isn't how Earth's defenses did or did not keep Nero from inflicting damage to San Francisco Bay. The question is why said defenses were so completely silenced that Nero's vulnerable drill was not counterattacked. Most of the weapons and improvised weapons on Earth that were capable of harming the drill would apparently have been outside central control, as Trek has always portrayed the hardware as such, so using command codes to confuse, destroy or lock up central control would not have protected the drill (even if it shut down all the orbital or surface cannon that could shoot down the Narada, confused the launching orders for the primary interceptor craft, and prevented the raising of all the shields that could oppose the drilling beam).

Timo Saloniemi
 
Timo,

I suspect that such weaponry might be intercepted before it reached the drill, or might be easily confused by radiation from the drill.

Spock's Ship probably caught them by surprise, whereas weapons or ships launched from the Earth's surface would be intercepted by those green missiles.
 
...V'Ger didn't even truly reach Earth before the heroes dealt with the menace. Getting closer would have exposed it to a range of non-centralized weapons, but those would probably have done less damage to a multi-dozen-kilometer orbital apple than to the dangling sensitives of a nine-kilometer, near-atmospheric orange.

Spock's Ship probably caught them by surprise, whereas weapons or ships launched from the Earth's surface would be intercepted by those green missiles.

That would just raise the question of why we saw no such interceptions. San Francisco alone should have been launcing something like a hundred weapons or craft per minute, keeping Nero quite busy and the sky filled with fireworks.

It's easy to believe that the drill would be Nero's weak spot also in terms of sensors: its jamming qualities (probably unintentional and unavoidable) would have nicely protected the skydiver team and the Jellyfish from Nero's attentions. But by the same token, other forces present on Vulcan and Earth should have exploited the weakness.

On Vulcan, Nero might have carefully chosen a spot far away from urban centers and military assets; going by TOS and TAS references, Sarek's villa might well have been on land bordering on uninhabited wasteland or religious sanctuary. All sorts of fighting might also have taken place before the camera arrived, and the already tortured landscape would reveal little of it.

Yet on Earth, Nero poked a veritable anthill with his drill, and the familiar lush surroundings showed no evidence of him having to fight for it.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I just got done watching Star Trek XI and was a little confused when it was up to Kirk, Sulu and that crazy dude with the bombs to destroy the device that was used to dig deep enough into the Earth's core. Would Earth not have some sort of defense system or land based operations that could propel such an attack? Enlighten me.

Of course they would have a much better defense. But of obviously this is part of building up dramatic tension and allowing the heroes to be the ones who save the say. If a barrage of torpedoes/missiles had crippled the drill, that wouldnt have made for a dramatic build up.

Could a mining vessel of 2011 defeat a battleship of 1940? No. The battleship would obliterate it. Once 14" or 16" shells started crashing into a drilling or mining vessel it would be torn to shreds and tatters.

Would the Romulans arm mining vessels to rival Warbirds? Would a mining vessel have any sort of anti-missile defense, let alone one so sophisticated? It doesnt make a lick of sense, but I guess it could. Its possible to do. But I think a Warbird coming back to the 23rd Century would have made more sense. But then again, ALOT of things in ST XI would have made alot more sense done differently. Maybe they didnt think a Constitution Class beating a 24th Century Warbird was believable. But then again, warp speed supernovas arent very believable either. ST XI is just a mess of these sorts of things.
 
Last edited:
Would the Romulans arm mining vessels to rival Warbirds? Would a mining vessel have any sort of anti-missile defense, let alone one so sophisticated? It doesnt make a lick of sense, but I guess it could. Its possible to do.

Why doesn't it make sense? Was there something that suggested Romulans wouldn't do that?

But I think a Warbird coming back to the 23rd Century would have made more sense. But then again, ALOT of things in ST XI would have made alot more sense done differently.

That's your own assumption. The vortex didn't say to the Narada "Hey, you should send a Warbird instead!"

Maybe they didnt think a Constitution Class beating a 24th Century Warbird was believable. But then again, warp speed supernovas arent very believable either.

People disappearing from one place and appearing in others isn't either. Oh well, what can you do?

ST XI is just a mess of these sorts of things.

Most of the things you mentioned aren't "a mess," just you would rather have seen a warbird than a mining ship is what it comes down to. That's called preference.
 
Why doesn't it make sense? Was there something that suggested Romulans wouldn't do that?

Hmm, why would miners not be heavily armed? Lemme think...because Rocks dont shoot back? This as silly as having a Garbage Scow being heavily armed. Could they equip their Scows with hundreds of plasma torpedoes and 15 disruptor banks? Ummmm, I guess they could. Does that make sense? Not a lick.

That's your own assumption. The vortex didn't say to the Narada "Hey, you should send a Warbird instead!"

Indeed, but the vortex didnt write the script! But if the writers wanted a powerful Romulan vessel, heres an idea...a Warbird!

People disappearing from one place and appearing in others isn't either. Oh well, what can you do?

Ahh, the old, "well if they have to BS on somethings, lets make everything BS!" What you can do is not write BS.

Most of the things you mentioned aren't "a mess," just you would rather have seen a warbird than a mining ship is what it comes down to. That's called preference.

Not at all, I would rather they not even have the time travel aspect at all. I could do without the Warbird. The messes are in things that dont make alot of sense. Its not a matter of story preferences.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, why would miners not be heavily armed? Lemme think...because Rocks dont shoot back?

So the only element that these ships will be exposed to is merely just rocks? Other ships won't try to attack them? Other people won't try to steal any precious cargo? Interesting. That's even MORE reason for them to be heavily armed.

Indeed, but the vortex didnt write the script! But if the writers wanted a powerful Romulan vessel, heres an idea...a Warbird!

You're switching from in-universe stuff to writer's intent. Sticking to in-universe reasoning, the vortex has no control over that. In the process of the film, the writers do. I don't know if a Warbird can do the things they wanted a ship to do, which makes more sense to have a vessel that can do that.

Ahh, the old, "well if they have to BS on somethings, lets make everything BS!" What you can do is not write BS.

Everything wasn't.

Not at all, I would rather they not even have the time travel aspect at all. I could do without the Warbird. The messes are in things that dont make alot of sense.

You're only complaint thus far has been that you feel a mining vessel shouldn't be heavily armed.
 
Could a mining vessel of 2011 defeat a battleship of 1940? No. The battleship would obliterate it. Once 14" or 16" shells started crashing into a drilling or mining vessel it would be torn to shreds and tatters.

On the other hand, a mining vessel from 1987, if it carried contemporary mining explosives used on land (oceanic mining doesn't typically use explosives), would probably defeat the warships of 1833 and 1858. The same is probably true of a hypothetical mining vessel from 1887 (mining ships were invented in the late 20th Century) versus warships from 1733 and 1758.

Since the onset of the industrial age, basic destructive technology and basic protective materials have advanced too rapidly to pit any vessel against another from 150 years in its future if the latter has been equipped with modern explosives (which isn't to say weapons). Even mining ships are likely to have basic modern projectile launchers of some kind capable of doing significant damage (today, basic technology like a shot line or heaving line might suffice against a 19th Century ship if fitted with explosives).
 
Could a mining vessel of 2011 defeat a battleship of 1940? No. The battleship would obliterate it. Once 14" or 16" shells started crashing into a drilling or mining vessel it would be torn to shreds and tatters.

On the other hand, a mining vessel from 1987, if it carried contemporary mining explosives used on land (oceanic mining doesn't typically use explosives), would probably defeat the warships of 1833 and 1858. The same is probably true of a hypothetical mining vessel from 1887 (mining ships were invented in the late 20th Century) versus warships from 1733 and 1758.


I dont think so. There is no reason to believe that in a few decades, drilling ships will be able to shrug off 16" shells or would be able to engage in a duel with an Iowa class battleship, let alone with a fleet of such warships.

Hits from even the 5" or 6" shells of destroyers and light cruisers of that era would more than sufficient to cripple the drilling apparatus and sink the ship. There wouldnt be any reason to even try to make them able to do that.
 
So the only element that these ships will be exposed to is merely just rocks? Other ships won't try to attack them? Other people won't try to steal any precious cargo? Interesting. That's even MORE reason for them to be heavily armed.

Hence, drilling ships today are heavily armed right? No they arent. Warships are heavily armed. If you are really worried about attacks, you could have escorts. Now, could they be heavily armed? They could be. You could design a warship that also does drilling, I suppose.

You're switching from in-universe stuff to writer's intent.

Im criticizing it as a movie. So yes, Im talking about writers intent. They need a drilling ship because they are going to "Drill" into a supernova (!?!?!?) or a star (?!?!?!) and then "suck up" the supernova with the Red Sun Sucking Goo? And this is a warp speed supernova!

Compared to that, the well armed drilling ship is the least of it! So no its not my only problem with this movie, but its just another piece of silliness thrown in.

Everything wasn't.

Nor should ANY bs be defended by saying "well somethings are BS, so why not shovel some more?" Which is what you did. Well transporters are hard to make sense of, so why not just throw a bunch more BS in there.

You're only complaint thus far has been that you feel a mining vessel shouldn't be heavily armed.

And it shouldnt be heavily armed, but thats not even close to the only complaint. I didnt take this thread to be an opportunity to review the whole movie.
 
I feel it necessary to point out that there are no land or ocean mining vessels currently in service in 2011 that are equipped with drilling beams capable of disabling transporters and communications, nor has any military battleship since the advent of naval warfare been equipped with deflector shields.

Our battleships and mining vessels are also built from raw materials and a scientific understanding based on what we know here on Earth during the last century. Unless someone has discovered a way to build mining ships with tritanium recently, there's really nothing spectacularly odd about a World War I or World War II battleship blowing the crap out of an oil rig in 2011.

In other words, this is the worst possible comparison.
 
I feel it necessary to point out that there are no land or ocean mining vessels currently in service in 2011 that are equipped with drilling beams capable of disabling transporters and communications, nor has any military battleship since the advent of naval warfare been equipped with deflector shields.

This is the worst possible comparison.

Indeed, but there are drilling ships, and no they couldnt win a fight with even HMS Dreadnought (1906). Nor are they a mere 20 -30 years from winning a fight with one. Let alone a whole fleet.

If just one of Dreadnoughts 12" shells hits that drilling derrick its lights out for the drilling operation. It would be wrecked with one shot. To say nothing of being pounded by broadsides of from any of its ten 12" guns or from multiple dreadnoughts, battlecruisers, cruisers, etc.

If we go by the 2387-2258 (129 years) rule that Cicero wants, means that a drilling ship of 2035 should beat HMS Dreadnought. We are 24 years away from drilling vessels that can beat a Dreadnought? A whole Fleet of them? Not even close. I can safely say that the drilling ships of the 2030's will be obliterated by 12" broadsides.

Without some better reason to think otherwise, Im not buying the drilling ship is a vessel that can take out hordes of Klingon warships and cut through any number of Federation starships like a hot knife through butter. On the contrary I can see this thing getting blown away by a single cruiser with no difficulty.
 
Last edited:
I've thought about this before and reached the conclusion it is reasonable. Imagine a modern supertanker armed with Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles. It could sink a fleet of WWII warships before they could get in range of their own guns. It could also take a great deal of damage (after it dumped its cargo) due the the size and compartmentalization of the ship.
 
I've thought about this before and reached the conclusion it is reasonable. Imagine a modern supertanker armed with Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles. It could sink a fleet of WWII warships before they could get in range of their own guns. It could also take a great deal of damage (after it dumped its cargo) due the the size and compartmentalization of the ship.

Well, I think they just wanted a lopsided blowout as if this were a Sovereign Class or a Warbird, but also wanted to "suck up" a supernova. Bascially the Scimitar, except its got a huge drill attached. For some reason they thought you could "drill" through stars or supernovas, which is laughable. To say nothing of sucking up warp speed supernovas.

But lets insert some crazy technocrapple explanation for the silly drill, and just say that a drilling vessel was needed for some reason. God only knows why. But in order to get it to tear through dozens of 23rd century warships, lets just say that the Romulans build their drilling ships, cargo haulers, garbage scows, etc with huge arsenals. You never know when a scow might have to fight off a Borg Cube.

The fights we saw were at point blank range, so the sort of difference you see in the missile vs. 20th cent gun example shouldnt work here either, but nevermind that. They have shields and armor like a Warbirds, so they just shrug all that off like its nothing.

Look, if someone can buy all that, I say "Sold!". Its yours. You can keep it.
 
Last edited:
Hence, drilling ships today are heavily armed right? No they arent.

That's not even the same thing nor the same circumstances as pointed out earlier.

Warships are heavily armed. If you are really worried about attacks, you could have escorts.

Or you could just have the vessel itself armed and use the warships for military operations.

Now, could they be heavily armed? They could be. You could design a warship that also does drilling, I suppose.

Or have a mining vessel defend itself, you keep going back to the warship thing.

They need a drilling ship because they are going to "Drill" into a supernova (!?!?!?) or a star (?!?!?!) and then "suck up" the supernova with the Red Sun Sucking Goo? And this is a warp speed supernova!

Just wondering, how long has it been since you've seen the film or how many times have you actually seen it? This in no way shape or form is what happened. Spock's vessel was what was used to contain the supernova. It launched the Red Matter into the nova. The Narada had nothing to do with that. The Narada chased after Spock after Romulus was destroyed.

Nor should ANY bs be defended by saying "well somethings are BS, so why not shovel some more?" Which is what you did. Well transporters are hard to make sense of, so why not just throw a bunch more BS in there.

I never thought it was B.S. You said that, but if you're going to be fair about it...
 
Indeed, but there are drilling ships, and no they couldnt win a fight with even HMS Dreadnought (1906). Nor are they a mere 20 -30 years from winning a fight with one. Let alone a whole fleet.

If just one of Dreadnoughts 12" shells hits that drilling derrick its lights out for the drilling operation. It would be wrecked with one shot. To say nothing of being pounded by broadsides of from any of its ten 12" guns or from multiple dreadnoughts, battlecruisers, cruisers, etc.

If we go by the 2387-2258 (129 years) rule that Cicero wants, means that a drilling ship of 2035 should beat HMS Dreadnought. We are 24 years away from drilling vessels that can beat a Dreadnought? A whole Fleet of them? Not even close. I can safely say that the drilling ships of the 2030's will be obliterated by 12" broadsides.

Granting a mining ship modern terrestrial mining explosives, it should be capable of defeating a squadron of Dreadnoughts (a more accurate comparison would be against a squadron consisting of one Dreadnought and seven pre-Dreadnoughts). The decisive factor is not the power of 12" broadsides - which no modern surface warship could withstand, let alone a civilian ship - but the offensive range of the two ships. A single 1980s Ticonderoga-class cruiser, despite its real but irrelevant vulnerability to battleship guns, could probably sink the entire line of battle of the Grand Fleet.

Dreadnought, which had no anti-aircraft capability, would be highly vulnerable to helicopter-delivered or UAV-delivered explosives, despite its formidable armor. (There is good reason to expect that a 2035 mining vessel would be equipped with at least one such aircraft. Modern ships, such as De Beers's recently build mining vessel Peace In Africa, already carry helipads.)

A battle between an Iowa and a mining ship from 2071, like that which Tarek71 suggests, would probably be resolved similarly, though I'm loathe to speculate the specific reasons 60 years before the mining vessel's date of departure. It's not necessary that modern ships be able to shrug off the heavy fire of old battleships, only that they avoid being destroyed by that firepower - in whatever way they may.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top