Was Kirk Lying?

[MaximRecoil]

Realistically, the wet blanket for replicators would be copyright, patent, etc., laws, and anyone who thinks such laws are going away, ever, is dreaming. So while basic food and other generic products would be cheap (presumably the only cost would be the raw materials and energy), as soon as you try to replicate the latest must-have name-brand item, your friendly replicator will ask you which form of payment you prefer.

Also, can small replicators replicate large objects, such as a car, house, boat, etc.? If not, then that is a major wet blanket too, since the largest items also tend to be the most valuable items. Even if they can replicate large objects, you're going to need, literally, tons of raw material to feed it. Where are you going to get that? Your back yard? Not only is that a lot of labor (assuming you can't just beam it into the replicator; considering the massive destructive power of a beaming device, I doubt they'd be legal for Joe Citizen to own; it would be like letting citizens have nukes), but pretty soon, you won't have a back yard anymore. There's no such thing as raw material that's cheap by the ton; even something as common as dirt costs quite a bit if you want tons of it delivered to your house, and you know the price of dirt and other raw materials (which would be controlled by land owners) would go through the roof when it turns out that you can feed tons of it into a replicator and it will spit out e.g., a yacht.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ There are industrial-sized replicators, but we don't know if there are any limitations on them (or on any other kind of replicator).

 

[Christopher]

Also, can small replicators replicate large objects, such as a car, house, boat, etc.? If not, then that is a major wet blanket too, since the largest items also tend to be the most valuable items.

Which is why not all replicators are small. The ones we see on the show are mostly for food production, so they're about the size of a single meal, like a microwave oven. Naturally industrial replicators or vehicle replicators are going to be far larger, but we don't see those on camera because they'd be more expensive for the TV crew to build. But we have heard industrial replicators referenced in dialogue, so we know that larger, more heavy-duty models exist. And we did see a "replicating center" in TNG: "Data's Day," a place where people went to replicate large or midsized items -- sort of the shipboard equivalent of a department store.

Even if they can replicate large objects, you're going to need, literally, tons of raw material to feed it. Where are you going to get that? Your back yard? Not only is that a lot of labor (assuming you can't just beam it into the replicator; considering the massive destructive power of a beaming device, I doubt they'd be legal for Joe Citizen to own; it would be like letting citizens have nukes), but pretty soon, you won't have a back yard anymore. There's no such thing as raw material that's cheap by the ton; even something as common as dirt costs quite a bit if you want tons of it delivered to your house, and you know the price of dirt and other raw materials (which would be controlled by land owners) would go through the roof when it turns out that you can feed tons of it into a replicator and it will spit out e.g., a yacht.

Any asteroid belt is going to have thousands of times more minerals and organic compounds than you could obtain from stripmining an entire planet's surface, and it's going to be far easier to reach because it's closer to the surface of the asteroids, and far easier to ship because you don't have to haul it out of a planetary gravity well. Not to mention that a starfaring civilization like the Federation has access to a limitless reserve of free solar energy. A civilization with interstellar travel would never have a shortage of energy or raw materials -- that's a particular ailment of those primitive or shortsighted societies that are trapped on a single planet.

And even for a planet-based society, what you're forgetting is that if you have replicators, you also have easy recycling. If any matter can be broken down and transformed into any other matter, there is no longer any such thing as waste. Anything that's used up can be broken down and turned back into useful items. Naturally there will be a little loss of material and energy, but it's a big planet and most of it can be replenished. If nothing else, all the garbage we've been accumulating over the centuries would be an invaluable source of raw materials for a future society with that kind of recycling ability.

 

[Timo]

anyone who thinks such laws are going away, ever, is dreaming

Why would the law matter? It isn't curtailing piracy (the non-naval sort) today, and never will have any hope of doing so.

With replicators, it's much worse. Anybody choosing to ignore the law can replicate a lawless replicator for himself and set up shop for law-independent replication, and any SWAT teams transporting in and smashing the original replicator will be hopelessly late.

When do replicators refuse to do the user's bidding on basis of "rules"? In "Field of Fire", it's said the government didn't release the pattern for the fancy gun for general use; that didn't hinder the villain in the slightest. In TNG, Troi was supposedly on a diet of some sort, getting only "health chocolate", but that was due to self-discipline. And if the FBI really is breathing on your neck, you can always purchase X "legally" and then create an infinite number of copies for your greater pleasure, using the original as a template.

There simply is zero evidence that replicators in Trek would allow the law to limit their use. Is there even a theoretical chance that the real world would work out any better for the law if and when object printers get better? I seriously doubt that.

Also, can small replicators replicate large objects, such as a car, house, boat, etc.?

The concept of using a small printer to print a slightly larger one that then prints an even larger one that ultimately prints a house is obvious enough, and being considered for future construction needs ITRW. I see no showstoppers with Trek replicators other than the need to secure a suitable space for the house-to-be.

you're going to need, literally, tons of raw material to feed it

In Trek, this is no problem: we never hear of the replicators requiring raw materials, be it tons or micrograms. ITRW, there would be problems until printers become good enough to manipulate matter down to such levels that trivially cheap sand can be used to print "gold" that's as good as the real stuff. Not that major an achievement, really (silicon certainly bends to the required conductivity, metallurgical properties and whatnot), but still quite a bit in the future.

considering the massive destructive power of a beaming device, I doubt they'd be legal for Joe Citizen to own

We never heard of a Trek government stopping a citizen from possessing weapons of mass destruction. Very much to the contrary, anybody can apparently operate a warp-powered spacecraft (there being licenses involved, as in "Mudd's Women", but you don't be a superman or a saint to get one), and the classic mountain-removing sidearms of Trek are clearly free for anybody to possess.

That, too, is another process where "law" would be utterly impotent to interfere with the ability of a citizen to blow up Earth. What could possibly be the mechanism? Rather, the benevolence of the citizens is counted upon. Is this where the "we have learned to detect the seeds of criminal behavior" bit from TNG "Justice" steps in? Do people who would use their ability to create nova bombs in their garages get screened out early in their lives, or possibly before their birth even (Picard did say "seeds"...)?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MaximRecoil]

Which is why not all replicators are small.

I'm talking about Joe Citizen. What's the biggest appliance the average person owns? Probably a refrigerator, right?

Any asteroid belt is going to have thousands of times more minerals and organic compounds than you could obtain from stripmining an entire planet's surface, and it's going to be far easier to reach because it's closer to the surface of the asteroids, and far easier to ship because you don't have to haul it out of a planetary gravity well. Not to mention that a starfaring civilization like the Federation has access to a limitless reserve of free solar energy.

Who is delivering tons upon tons of raw materials to Joe Citizen for free or cheap? Just because something is plentiful doesn't mean it's free or cheap. Order yourself a giant load of gravel sometime and see what that "dirt-cheap" dirt actually costs.

A civilization with interstellar travel would never have a shortage of energy or raw materials -- that's a particular ailment of those primitive or shortsighted societies that are trapped on a single planet.

There is no shortage of energy or raw materials here in Maine either, but neither are cheap or free. Maple trees grow like weeds on my property; I have to cut saplings down routinely to keep them from growing through my porch or damaging my basement with their roots, but that doesn't get me a discount on maple lumber at the store.

And even for a planet-based society, what you're forgetting is that if you have replicators, you also have easy recycling. If any matter can be broken down and transformed into any other matter, there is no longer any such thing as waste. Anything that's used up can be broken down and turned back into useful items. Naturally there will be a little loss of material and energy, but it's a big planet and most of it can be replenished. If nothing else, all the garbage we've been accumulating over the centuries would be an invaluable source of raw materials for a future society with that kind of recycling ability.

That will only get you so far. It is kind of like having a wood stove and hoping to heat your home solely by burning the combustible garbage you would normally throw away. It will help some, but you're still going to need to buy or harvest wood by the cord to get through e.g., a Maine winter.

Why would the law matter? It isn't curtailing piracy (the non-naval sort) today, and never will have any hope of doing so.

Because the law will be enforced by the device itself. Sure, there may be hardware hackers who can get around it, but your average Joe is unlikely to be able to. A present-day analogy is scanners and photocopiers which have built-in protection against copying banknotes.

With replicators, it's much worse. Anybody choosing to ignore the law can replicate a lawless replicator for himself and set up shop for law-independent replication, and any SWAT teams transporting in and smashing the original replicator will be hopelessly late.

See above.

When do replicators refuse to do the user's bidding on basis of "rules"? In "Field of Fire", it's said the government didn't release the pattern for the fancy gun for general use; that didn't hinder the villain in the slightest. In TNG, Troi was supposedly on a diet of some sort, getting only "health chocolate", but that was due to self-discipline. And if the FBI really is breathing on your neck, you can always purchase X "legally" and then create an infinite number of copies for your greater pleasure, using the original as a template.

There simply is zero evidence that replicators in Trek would allow the law to limit their use. Is there even a theoretical chance that the real world would work out any better for the law if and when object printers get better? I seriously doubt that.

The first word of my post was "realistically", i.e., I was talking about how things would happen in the real world if Star Trek style replicator technology were invented.

In Trek, this is no problem: we never hear of the replicators requiring raw materials, be it tons or micrograms.

I'm going by what Memory Alpha says:

A replicator was a device that used transporter technology to dematerialize quantities of matter and then rematerialize that matter in another form. It was also capable of inverting its function, thus disposing of leftovers and dishes and storing the bulk material again. (TNG: "Lonely Among Us"; DS9: "Hard Time", "The Ascent"; VOY: "Year of Hell", "Memorial")

I don't know firsthand if Memory Alpha is correct or not, because it has been ages since I watched any version of the Star Trek series other than TOS.

We never heard of a Trek government stopping a citizen from possessing weapons of mass destruction. Very much to the contrary, anybody can apparently operate a warp-powered spacecraft (there being licenses involved, as in "Mudd's Women", but you don't be a superman or a saint to get one), and the classic mountain-removing sidearms of Trek are clearly free for anybody to possess.

See above (i.e., "realistically").

That, too, is another process where "law" would be utterly impotent to interfere with the ability of a citizen to blow up Earth. What could possibly be the mechanism?

In the real world, with high technology and high destruction capability comes a high level security safeguarding it. Joe Sixpack won't have access. When was the last time you heard of some guy off the street taking an e.g., F-22 Raptor for a joyride?

 

[Christopher]

I'm talking about Joe Citizen. What's the biggest appliance the average person owns? Probably a refrigerator, right?

See the part about replicator centers. You don't have something at home, you go out to the store. Or you mail-order it.

Who is delivering tons upon tons of raw materials to Joe Citizen for free or cheap? Just because something is plentiful doesn't mean it's free or cheap. Order yourself a giant load of gravel sometime and see what that "dirt-cheap" dirt actually costs.

Again, I'm talking about space. Most of the expense of getting materials from Earth into space is fighting the Earth's gravity well. Once you're in space, getting from the asteroid belt to Earth orbit is actually a great deal easier and cheaper than getting from the Earth's surface into Earth orbit. After all, there's no friction to slow a cargo pod down, no wind or waves to blow it off course, so it can just coast indefinitely until it reaches its destination. And of course with solar-powered robotic drones, shipping things across the system would be comparatively quite easy.

Again, an interstellar civilization has unlimited access to solar energy. Literally millions of gigantic fusion reactors just pouring out immense amounts of energy for free -- all you have to do is harness it. It is totally absurd to compare the kind of economy we have in the limited environs of Earth with the kind of post-scarcity economy that a starfaring civilization would have. It would be a completely different paradigm based on a level of resource and energy abundance that nobody trapped by Earthbound assumptions can possibly comprehend.

There is no shortage of energy or raw materials here in Maine either, but neither are cheap or free.

See, there you go. That's a completely inept comparison, an error of scale as fundamental as comparing a thimble full of water to all the oceans of the world. Listen carefully. You could strip mine the entire surface of the Earth down to the mantle, leaving the planet an uninhabitable ruin, and still would not collect even a thousandth of the mineral resources that are easily available in the Main Asteroid Belt. And that's not even counting the even larger Kuiper Belt and the immensely larger Oort Cloud. The resources available on the entire Earth are a pittance compared to what's available in an entire star system. Let alone the thousands of star systems that the Federation would have access to. Scarcity would be a forgotten concept in such a civilization.

 

[Vandervecken]

I don't know that we can accept the premise that all Sylvia and Korob knew was from the crew's minds. Korob begins to say "I read--" before being cut off by Kirk.

Natural gems might be nonesuches in this era with certificates of authenticity, each one specially identifiable by a one-of-a-kind flaw. Just a thought.

 

[MaximRecoil]

See the part about replicator centers. You don't have something at home, you go out to the store. Or you mail-order it.

That's a service that someone has to provide, and people tend to charge for services.

Again, I'm talking about space. Most of the expense of getting materials from Earth into space is fighting the Earth's gravity well. Once you're in space, getting from the asteroid belt to Earth orbit is actually a great deal easier and cheaper than getting from the Earth's surface into Earth orbit. After all, there's no friction to slow a cargo pod down, no wind or waves to blow it off course, so it can just coast indefinitely until it reaches its destination. And of course with solar-powered robotic drones, shipping things across the system would be comparatively quite easy.

It has to get to someone's door before it can benefit the end user.

Again, an interstellar civilization has unlimited access to solar energy. Literally millions of gigantic fusion reactors just pouring out immense amounts of energy for free -- all you have to do is harness it.

Irrelevant; the harnessing and delivery of the energy is where the money is made. Do people who live near a large river have all the free energy they want? Do people who own land with hundreds of acres of trees have free firewood? If they want to work for it they do, but if labor is involved it isn't quite "free".

It is totally absurd to compare the kind of economy we have in the limited environs of Earth with the kind of post-scarcity economy that a starfaring civilization would have.

No, it isn't. There is no energy/resource scarcity here relative to our needs. If we wanted to e.g., generate a black hole, then there might be a problem, but for what we do, energy is in abundance, yet, it still costs money or labor to harness/deliver it, and/or purchase and maintain equipment (such as in the case of solar panels or wind mills).

It would be a completely different paradigm based on a level of resource and energy abundance that nobody trapped by Earthbound assumptions can possibly comprehend.

Apparently, you can't comprehend Earthbound realities, which will never change. A society consisting of nothing but consumers can't function. Very little gets accomplished when there is no profit incentive. Whether "replicators" require bulk matter or massive amounts of energy to function, neither will be free or cheap, because there will be a huge demand for it, and where there's a huge demand, there's money to be made. Those who control the energy harnessing and delivery infrastructure will control the prices, and they'll make a fortune just as they always have.

See, there you go. That's a completely inept comparison, an error of scale as fundamental as comparing a thimble full of water to all the oceans of the world. Listen carefully. You could strip mine the entire surface of the Earth down to the mantle, leaving the planet an uninhabitable ruin, and still would not collect even a thousandth of the mineral resources that are easily available in the Main Asteroid Belt. And that's not even counting the even larger Kuiper Belt and the immensely larger Oort Cloud. The resources available on the entire Earth are a pittance compared to what's available in an entire star system. Let alone the thousands of star systems that the Federation would have access to. Scarcity would be a forgotten concept in such a civilization.

There is no "error of scale". In both cases, the available energy far exceeds the demand, and you fail Analogies 101 forever (which renders this excerpt of yours comically ironic). This idea that there is currently an energy/resource scarcity on Earth is solely a product of your imagination. No matter how big the supply is, it still has to be harvested/harnessed and delivered, and that costs money.

I'll repeat:

There is no shortage of energy or raw materials here in Maine either, but neither are cheap or free.

Furthermore, from the perspective of people in Maine, the available energy and raw materials are effectively infinite. The same could be said for many other places around the world. So why aren't they free or cheap? I've already given the example of dirt, which is so abundant and cheap (in small quantities) that "dirt cheap" is a well-established saying, but what happens when you want a lot of it? It is no longer free or cheap. Why? Well, it has nothing to do with it being scarce, which refutes your entire line of reasoning, by the way (the fact that you don't realize it changes exactly nothing). According to your invalid line of reasoning, if only we had a lot more dirt on earth (even though we already have an effectively infinite supply), then someone would gladly deliver you tons of it for free or cheap.

 

[Christopher]

That's a service that someone has to provide, and people tend to charge for services.

In a scarcity-based economy, yes. In a post-scarcity economy? With lots of robots? Not necessarily. Like I said, the paradigms that exist on Earth today are totally inapplicable to a post-scarcity interstellar civilization. That's like trying to apply the tactics of horse-mounted combat to submarine warfare. It's using the wrong model.

Try reading some of Iain M. Banks's Culture novels. Or Wil McCarthy's The Queendom of Sol. There's a lot of SF out there about post-scarcity economies.

Apparently, you can't comprehend Earthbound realities, which will never change.

No, because I'm not talking about an "Earthbound" situation at all. I'm talking about an interstellar economy.

A society consisting of nothing but consumers can't function. Very little gets accomplished when there is no profit incentive.

Bull. Capitalism is a recent invention, not a fundamental law of nature. There have been many economic systems throughout history and prehistory, and many different ways that people can be motivated.

And "profit" doesn't have to mean material gain. Lots of people would gladly work for the love of their jobs, for the satisfaction it brings them, for the sake of taking on an engaging challenge, or for the sense of responsibility for their community. If material profit were the only thing that motivated anyone, charities and volunteer work would not exist.

Whether "replicators" require bulk matter or massive amounts of energy to function, neither will be free or cheap, because there will be a huge demand for it, and where there's a huge demand, there's money to be made.

Only when the demand is large in proportion to the supply. When supply is large compared to demand, costs go down. And the supply of energy and raw materials in space is huger than you can possibly comprehend.

Those who control the energy harnessing and delivery infrastructure will control the prices, and they'll make a fortune just as they always have.

Dude... it's solar energy. Nobody controls the light from the Sun. Nobody could possibly create a monopoly on sunlight, unless they could get their hands on a Dyson sphere.

 

[Timo]

Because the law will be enforced by the device itself.

Well, that's the catch - the technology by its very nature is extremely unlikely to ever be controlled. Governments probably wouldn't even care, but the important thing is that the commercial interests would be unable and unwilling to agree on any sort of regulation, either. Just see how utterly futile the copyguards on IP today are, and how the law cannot even retroactively do anything about it.

Going with the flow, and trying to siphon off whatever profits one can, is again likely to be the approach of the commercial players. Lawyers can and will kick in, but that won't affect the issue of what can be replicated and at what price: for the willing, the answer will always be "everything" and "for free".

In the real world, with high technology and high destruction capability comes a high level security safeguarding it. Joe Sixpack won't have access. When was the last time you heard of some guy off the street taking an e.g., Boeing 767 for a joyride?

9/11? WMDs are consumer goods today. They didn't used to be that yesterday. There isn't a Snowden's chance in hell that they would become less accessible tomorrow.

The difference between Trek getting there and the real world getting there isn't really in the direction of them having it easy. In Trek, there's a whiff of totalitarianism to it all (largely accidentally, thanks to TPTB not being able to afford the external trappings of "diversity" and "complexity" and thus "freedom"); ITRW, dog-eat-dog competition would make it even less likely that any one entity would have the interest let alone the ability to safeguard object printers against things like WMD printing or multiplication of wealth. The mechanisms for such things would have to come from somewhere else altogether.

people tend to charge

Obvious issues with this one:

1) People only get to charge as much as you are willing to pay. And replicators don't turn everybody into a consumer: they turn everybody into a producer. So what if your tank of raw silicon oxide isn't literally dirt cheap? The trucker who charges you more for it when you order it in great bulk will starve, while the one who gives discount for every starting megaton might tread water.

2) Relative prices on basically everything even remotely analogous to replicators (home computing, home cooking, home manufacturing) have gone down drastically with the tech advances of the 20th century. The downtrend isn't turning. Brand products do poorly if they try to compete with generic ones: they only subsist on being something extra on top of what the consumer is already purchasing. But brands are endangered species whenever "home whatever" gets going, and home manufacturing is the ultimate killer.

Oh, I'm sure there will be twists to this tale, and none of them will lead to the TNG version of reality as such. But the basic nature of replication tech and its direct effects on consumer economy will probably be very TNG-like within our lifetimes (and within our cultural context). Even if we add free energy on top of that, we won't get end of poverty, end of war and the rest of the TNG gospel. But we won't get a reality where object printing is watered down by legislation or scarcity, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vandervecken]

There isn't a Snowden's chance in hell that they would become less accessible tomorrow.


Timo Saloniemi

Is this a Catch-22 reference?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I think he was referring to Edward Snowden. God only knows why.

 

[MaximRecoil]

In a scarcity-based economy, yes.

Again, there is no scarcity. Where do you live that you think energy is scarce? Did your electric company tell you, "Sorry, there's not enough electricity to go around, you'll have to wait until someone cancels their service before we can hook you up,"?

In a post-scarcity economy? With lots of robots? Not necessarily.

Who owns the robots, and why would they put their property to work for you for free or cheap?

Like I said, the paradigms that exist on Earth today are totally inapplicable to a post-scarcity interstellar civilization. That's like trying to apply the tactics of horse-mounted combat to submarine warfare. It's using the wrong model.

No, it is not inapplicable at all, much less "totally" inapplicable. Basic human nature will never change. If, say, some god came down and supplied everyone with everything they need or want, free of charge, then that would be a different story.

No, because I'm not talking about an "Earthbound" situation at all. I'm talking about an interstellar economy.

Irrelevant. The realities don't change. The only thing changed by increasing technology and space travel capabilities is the amount of accessible resources, and I've already pointed out that even when there is an effectively infinite supply of something, it still doesn't necessarily become free or cheap.

Bull.

Go ahead and explain how a society consisting of nothing but consumers can function.

Capitalism is a recent invention, not a fundamental law of nature.

I never said otherwise. However, profit is what drives significant advances in technology and the many services we take for granted. If suddenly there were no more avenues for profit for anyone, we'd stagnate and eventually regress.

There have been many economic systems throughout history and prehistory, and many different ways that people can be motivated.

All economic systems are profit-based; an economic system can't be sustained if everyone is either suffering economic losses or only breaking even.

And "profit" doesn't have to mean material gain. Lots of people would gladly work for the love of their jobs, for the satisfaction it brings them, for the sake of taking on an engaging challenge, or for the sense of responsibility for their community. If material profit were the only thing that motivated anyone, charities and volunteer work would not exist.

None of those things put food on the table.

Only when the demand is large in proportion to the supply. When supply is large compared to demand, costs go down.

That's a gross oversimplification, and thus, a fallacy. I've already given examples of supply which ~infinitely exceeds demand; dirt being the most blatant example; but another example is water. A typical bottle of water costs as much or more than a typical bottle of soda or beer, even though water is in far greater supply.

And the supply of energy and raw materials in space is huger than you can possibly comprehend.

It is already huger than you can possibly comprehend right here on Earth. Making a supply of something which is already effectively infinite, even bigger, doesn't change anything in and of itself.

Dude... it's solar energy. Nobody controls the light from the Sun. Nobody could possibly create a monopoly on sunlight, unless they could get their hands on a Dyson sphere.

What are you imagining? People going out on a sunny day with a bucket to collect their sunlight energy for the day? If you're imagining solar panels, well, those aren't particularly effective, at least not on Earth, because there isn't much energy in sunlight per e.g., square inch at this distance, which is why we can go outside on a sunny day without being vaporized by exposure to a massive concentration of energy. Sure, you can meet relatively small energy demands with a relatively large solar panel array, maybe enough so you don't have to pay for electricity anymore, but you certainly won't be harvesting enough energy to produce usable amounts of matter in a replicator. E = mc2, i.e., it takes a metric ass ton of energy to equal even a tiny amount of matter.

In order to harvest massive energy from the sun, something like a Dyson ring would have to be set up, i.e., a massive technological infrastructure, and the people who control the infrastructure won't just be delivering it to your home for nothing.

In the real world, with high technology and high destruction capability comes a high level security safeguarding it. Joe Sixpack won't have access. When was the last time you heard of some guy off the street taking an e.g., Boeing 767 for a joyride?

9/11? WMDs are consumer goods today. They didn't used to be that yesterday. There isn't a Snowden's chance in hell that they would become less accessible tomorrow.

Given that you intentionally misquoted me, consider your intellectual dishonesty noted.

 

[Marsden]

E = mc2, i.e., it takes a metric ass ton of energy to equal even a tiny amount of matter.

Good point!

Can you convert that to Imperial units? How many hogsheads in an Metric ass ton?

 

[Timo]

Given that you intentionally misquoted me, consider your intellectual dishonesty noted.

Heh. A fully fueled Boeing 767 has significantly more destructive potential than a fully laden F-22, so please accept this free gift to your (losing) side of the argument.

Although I could give you further freebies and notice that Joe Sixpack is actually fairly irrelevant to the argument: professional pilots authorized to fly aircraft do their fair share of (unauthorized) mass murder, too. C.f. a couple of famous incidents with further commercial airliners of late.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MaximRecoil]

Heh. A fully fueled Boeing 767 has significantly more destructive potential than a fully laden F-22

No, it doesn't. They both can deliver about the same amount of kinetic energy by simply crashing into something (energy equivalent to about 1 ton of TNT). The Boeing has a bunch of fuel which is basically kerosene, which is simply an accelerant (and not a very good one), not even remotely an explosive, while the F-22 not only carries missiles with high-explosive warheads, and cannons, but has a targeting system for precise delivery. The delivery can be on one target or multiple targets can be pinpointed (as opposed to the Boeing, which is just a one-target suicide mission affair).

so please accept this free gift to your (losing) side of the argument.

Logically, you were automatically disqualified for blatant dishonesty, which means you lost, by default.

 

[Drone]

Not really knowing the effective destructive power of different capacities of ordnance, you're saying then that 767 would cause more devastation than an extremely accurately targeted and delivered 2,000 lbs. of ordnance?

 

[Timo]

When talking about getting the greatest number of innocent people killed, yes. The currently cleared warload of the F-22 does not include weapons capable of killing a lot of people unless those are students trying to cram themselves into one precisely targetable telephone booth. A passenger jet, if properly applied, can spread destruction over a wide area, meaning a high death toll in urban environments. Dense skyscraper 'hoods are something of an exception where even the two Mk 82-range bombs the F-22 might theoretically pack can topple a large building over neighboring ones and spread out the destruction.

This of course assumes an unauthorized mission, meaning the F-22 doesn't get any reloads. Although the odds are the fighter wouldn't carry any air-to-ground ordnance unless specifically configured for the unauthorized mission, which is left as an exercise to the reader.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MaximRecoil]

When talking about getting the greatest number of innocent people killed, yes. The currently cleared warload of the F-22 does not include weapons capable of killing a lot of people unless those are students trying to cram themselves into one precisely targetable telephone booth. A passenger jet, if properly applied, can spread destruction over a wide area, meaning a high death toll in urban environments. Dense skyscraper 'hoods are something of an exception where even the two Mk 82-range bombs the F-22 might theoretically pack can topple a large building over neighboring ones and spread out the destruction.

This of course assumes an unauthorized mission, meaning the F-22 doesn't get any reloads. Although the odds are the fighter wouldn't carry any air-to-ground ordnance unless specifically configured for the unauthorized mission, which is left as an exercise to the reader.

Timo Saloniemi

Absurd. The only thing destructive an airliner can do is crash. The F-22 can also crash, with roughly the same amount of energy (it is much lighter, but it can fly ~3 times faster; the energy works out to about the same; equivalent to about 1 ton of TNT in either case, as I already pointed out), so they cancel each other out on the crashing part. However, the F-22 also has weapons.

As a simple illustration of the obvious fact that the F-22 can do far more damage, suppose they both crash into a building. However, before crashing into the building, the F-22 fires all of its weapons at the building. Which do you suppose did more damage?

On top of that, the F-22 is more likely to be successful at doing damage, due to its far greater speed and maneuverability (which means it isn't so easily shot down as a lumbering airliner), and targeting mechanisms for its weapons.

 

[Timo]

As a simple illustration of the obvious fact that the F-22 can do far more damage, suppose they both crash into a building. However, before crashing into the building, the F-22 fires all of its weapons at the building. Which do you suppose did more damage?

Heh, when you phrase it like that - the B767. After all, the weapons of the F-22 are incapable of hurting buildings ahead of the suicidal fighter, save for the peashooter gun that carries virtually no ammo even on an "operational" sortie. It's not a matter of energy at all, then, but of footprint: the fighter creates a much narrower path of destruction through an urban area. And this matters whether it's about impacting high-rise buildings (the B767 spreads over a wider area after the fatal meeting with the first building) or plowing through a shacktown.

Of course, if somebody did get hold of a Raptor, deploying it against a building would be about the least fearsome thing the villain could achieve. But the real point here is, weapons of sufficient mass destruction are easily available to the determined member of the Sixpack family, and those being jealously guarded by the armed forces aren't really worth coveting.

Timo Saloniemi