www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

GandalfTG wrote:And I don't know which freighter's you're talking about, because the one's that I've referenced SPECIFICALLY, The Shelley and The Sydney, were both very clearly Starfleet, therefor MILITARY (sorta). As I have said before, the only one of the three completly unarmed classes that we haven't seen an official Starfleet version of would be The Raven, and I have already said that I do accept the possibility that she may well have been unarmed, but to do so would be criminally negligent, immoral, and Felony Stupidity.

The Raven is a science ship, and arming it would be just as much a waste of space as putting scientific instruments on a warship (which probably counts as an argument for it being armed ). The Sydney is a transport, not a warship, which are typically unarmed, or armed only with machine guns, for which there is no Fed analogue.

Ok, Raven aside, which we both agree could have been unarmed, and are only arguing over semantics at this point and entirely not germaine to my point, we can ignore it for the moment.

You claim that the Sydney is merely a transport, not a Starship. (don't use Warship, as the Federation doesn't build warships, with the exception of the Defiant class, and they don't even acknowledge that it's a warship.) I have said that the Sydney is a Starfleet Starship. I have provided my evidence that backs up my claim. Please either a: prove my evidence is faulty, or b: provide your own evidence to the contrary. And no, "Because Graham Said So" is not a valid bit of evidence. (unless it's in Green or Yellow text. Remember, White is speculation...)

I believe that The Orion Syndicate is organized crime. as such, Smuggling, gun-running, racketeering, etc, is a normal part of business. So is Piracy for a space born criminal enterprise. Even if the Orion Syndicate itself doesn't commit piracy, that doesn't mean that other groups don't. As an example, the Maquis were very clearly cast in the role of pirates. Lursa & Bator are also clearly pirates. Other groups and organizations of the era were also cast in the same role.

How does organised crime = piracy? The latter is a much more dangerous occupation, particularly in space where there's nowhere to hide, and runs the risk of accidentally hitting a Q-ship or a heavily-shielded craft. Also, we've never seen any indication that the Syndicate is involved in piracy - they prefer less high-profile activities. Lursa and B'etor were smugglers, not pirates, and the Maquis tended to concentrate on Cardassian targets. Overall, the tendency of piracy in TNG+ Trek appears very low and in any event, raising shields and running would be a better option than trying to fight.

So, let's see, you have a fleet of starships that haul cargo about. You don't care about the laws except as to avoid them. Why would you not have a few cells of your orginization dedicated to piracy? We may disagree if they were likely involved in piracy, but I'm sure that you will acknowledge that they were definatly the "Bad Guys" and very capable of doing nearly anything they wanted. Now, if you had a cargo, and they wanted it, do you seriously think they wouldn't take it from you if you were unarmed? Or do you think that just because you have weapons means that you have to stand and fight? Shooting as you run away and cry for help is not only a valid tactic, but the smart thing to do!

Now, I have constantly said that piracy is not common, and is in fact quite rare within the Federation, but it does exist.

Lursa & Bator smuggler, not pirates? Lets see, I've arranged to 'buy' an illegal object from you, I take it from your ship, then blow the crap out of your ship. I would whole heartedly call that Piracy. And if the Maquis had a tendency to concentrate on Cardassian targets is irrelevent. It is still an example of Piracy during the TNG/DS9 era, proving my point, that piracy exists no matter how rare it may well be.

I agree with this entirely. One does not need twenty class XII phasers and 10 rapid fire quantium torpedo launchers to be considered "Ready for Trouble." A couple of older class VII phaser strips is more than sufficient, and most likely cheap enough, for your basic "Ready for Trouble" check. It's more than a shuttle, but far less than modern Starfleet ships, so should hardly be intimidating to other governments, but should be enough to intimidate pirates.

Evek expressed surprise in "Preemptive Strike" at the Maquis possesing Type-VIII phasers, although whether that was refering to the scale of the weapons or there existence is unclear. The implication generally seems to be that the Maquis bolted weapons onto previously unarmed ships, indicating that this is the typical state of affairs.

I don't think I can agree with that intepretation of events. my interpretation of that scene is that Evek was surprised that they had the weapons that they did, not that they had them. The implication there being that ships do carry weapons of some sort, just not military grade phasers. Now I will acknowedge that this is one point where I don't think either of us is going to be able to convice the other, as it is we both see things and interpret them to suit our belifs.

Consider that Starfleet personel don't even blink an eye at the civilian ownership of personal weaponry, including phasers and disruptors, I highly doubt that they would ban them on ships. If they aren't illegal, then civilians will have them on their vessels for the same reasons that they carry a hand phaser, self-protection.

Now, again, that is ignoring the fact that the Shelley and Sydney WERE Starfleet, and were expected not only to defend themselves, but the Federation itself should the need arise, and they have no business being unarmed in any way shape or form.

Not all military ships go round with heavy armament. Transports in particularly tend to be very lighly armed - with machine guns at most.

I never said that they should be heavily armed, just that the should BE armed. Again with that whole balance of arms vs threats thing...

Why was a Shelley seen limping away from a combat zone when the Federation was at war with the Dominion? Civilian vessels aren't permitted in combat zones, UNARMED Civilians even less so. That vessel was very clearly a part of the fleet action, and as such, had to be armed. Starfleet isn't in the habit of risking an entire crew just to deliver a few spare parts, making the argument that she was just an unarmed cargo hauler would be madness.

Quite apart from the fact that many military vessels are unarmed, it's not unheard of for civilian ships to go into combat unarmed - the Canberra at the Battle of San Carlos Water, for example, was armed only with the light-role GPMGs of its infantry passengers.

The Brits do a lot of strange things that I, as an American, find incomprehensible. While I respect a lot of what the British Military was able to accomplish in the Falklands War, not being prepared to ship troops overseas wasn't one of them. The British Navy pressed the Canberra, a civilian cruise ship, into military service, replaced her crew, and welded pintle mounts for .50 cal MGs to her railings and shored them with sand bags. (I went looking up the Canberra for this information btw. I'm far from an expert on UK Military.) It could be argued that the Canberra at this point was no longer a civilian ship, but a (very) light military vessel. And yes, it is unheard of for civilian vessels, being vessels not under the control of the military, to enter a combat zone. Any vessel attempting to do so would either be ordered out of the area, or blown out of the water when they failed to leave. To allow an unknown vessel into a combat zone is to introduce an unknown element into the field of battle, and another threat to the fleet, which every fleet commander would find unacceptable, and rightly so.

Not only that, but if you were a civilian vessel, and you were in a combat zone as it went hot, and people start shooting at you, the very first thing you do is run away as fast as you can, not stick around until you have big gaping holes in your hull because you are neither stupid nor wish to die. This is true if you have weapons or not...

As far as I can tell, there are no ships in the current US Navy that are completly unarmed (with the exception of the floating drydock ships). Even the cargo vessels, Combat Stores Ships, Tenders, and other Auxiliary vessels are all armed in some fashion, commonly with little more than .50 cal MGs and 3" Bofors guns, but they are armed. Even the USCG Icebreakers are armed with 3" Deck Guns and MGs.

Rochey wrote:Somethings I didn't see adressed, so I thought I'd jump in.

Even if a Freighter is civilian owned and operated, which the classes in the list aren't, it would be up to the owners and operators if they wanted weapons or not. I just can't see how they would turn weapons down unless they were pacifist to the point of stupidity.

For the same reason that modern day trading ships don't usualy have guns, perhaps?

Actually, modern day trading vessels are banned from carrying weapons by international law. You can't even carry a handgun for personal defense, which is why many areas of our oceans are still rife with piracy. This is why I refuse to go anywhere by ship, as they are incapable of providing me with personal protection, and refuse me the right to do it for myself. As stated in a previous message, I do not believe that this is the case in the Federation, as they don't even blink when a civilian is armed with a hand phaser or disruptor.

"Would you like a shield generator on your vessel?"
"No, that's ok, I don't believe in violence, so if someone wants to kill me, they can go right ahead."

Actualy, it's more akin to:
"Would you like a shield generator on your vessel?"
"No, thats OK, I'm not planning on entering hostile situations, or putting myself and my cargo at risk."

Again, you could say similar things about modern day ships.

Nobody ever says "Ya know, today I think I'm going to put my cargo at risk..." well, civilians anyway... Military people are a special brand of crazy... Most people don't plan on entering hostile situations, but that doesn't mean that people wind up in them every day. And wind up dead because they failed to plan for it. I don't plan on getting mugged, or carjacked, or any other such hostile confrontation, but I do have a plan for what I'm going to do if I am ever faced with such a situation.

Are you surprised that the President of the United States has a plan, in writing, for just about everything? There are plans for the use of Nuclear Weapons, for invading Poland, Germany, Russia, The UK, Panama, Colombia, wherever, you name it, I would guarentee that there's a plan to invade, fight them off our soil, generally kick their asses, or Nuke them into oblivion, including the possibility of encountering beings not from this planet, be they hostile or peaceful.

And yes, that is how I see weapons. When it comes right down to brass tacks, a few phaser banks are just as important as a good shield generator. It makes the predators look elsewhere. I wouldn't need my freighter to out-gun a Galor Class Frigate, but I do need it to protect my cargo.

Problem is, unless you take up a large area of your ship with generators, guns, shield generators, etc (which would seriously impact your profits) your ship will be completely impotent against any pirating ship which would, naturaly, be dedicated for combat. At best, you would only annoy the attackers to the point where they shoot you dead rather than take your cargo and let you go on your way.

Actually, modern day trading vessels are banned from carrying weapons by international law.

Oh, right. I was unaware of that.

As stated in a previous message, I do not believe that this is the case in the Federation, as they don't even blink when a civilian is armed with a hand phaser or disruptor.

Have we actualy seen any citizens with hand held weapons?
The only incident that comes to my memory, is a story O'Brien told about being saved during a Cardassian attack on a colony by a woman shooting his attacker with a phaser. But given that it was the middle of a warzone, that gun could have come from anywhere.

I don't plan on getting mugged, or carjacked, or any other such hostile confrontation, but I do have a plan for what I'm going to do if I am ever faced with such a situation.

Of course you do, as do I. But does your plan involves getting into combat with them? The safest course of action, in any of those circumstances, is simply to comply with the attacker, and hand over your car, phone, money, etc.
In space, the safest option would just be to hand the cargo over, rather than get a bunch of holes blown out of your ship, and possibly killed.

Are you surprised that the President of the United States has a plan, in writing, for just about everything? There are plans for the use of Nuclear Weapons, for invading Poland, Germany, Russia, The UK, Panama, Colombia, wherever, you name it, I would guarentee that there's a plan to invade, fight them off our soil, generally kick their asses, or Nuke them into oblivion, including the possibility of encountering beings not from this planet, be they hostile or peaceful.

No, not at all surprised. I myself have plans for a whole bunch of things that may never happen to me, but might.

Giving up should never be an option. Its because of that option that pirates can make their money. If they know that they will have to fight like they are in a war to get what they are after they would be less inclined to to commit the crimes in question.

P.S.
I didn't know there was a law against firearms on a ship.
Is it only for Commercial vessels?

Rochey wrote:

As stated in a previous message, I do not believe that this is the case in the Federation, as they don't even blink when a civilian is armed with a hand phaser or disruptor.

Have we actualy seen any citizens with hand held weapons?
The only incident that comes to my memory, is a story O'Brien told about being saved during a Cardassian attack on a colony by a woman shooting his attacker with a phaser. But given that it was the middle of a warzone, that gun could have come from anywhere.

Yes, we have. TNG season 3, episode: The Survivors. The man, pretending to be a Federation civilian, carries an antique low yield phaser pistol (non-functional to boot... gotta respect the moxie...). He may not have been Federation, but he was pretending to be Federation. There have been others, and comments made by the crew suggest that private ownership of weapons in general is not illegal, only the ownership of certain weapons, such as that one disruptor that the guy who kidnapped Data had.

I don't plan on getting mugged, or carjacked, or any other such hostile confrontation, but I do have a plan for what I'm going to do if I am ever faced with such a situation.

Of course you do, as do I. But does your plan involves getting into combat with them? The safest course of action, in any of those circumstances, is simply to comply with the attacker, and hand over your car, phone, money, etc.
In space, the safest option would just be to hand the cargo over, rather than get a bunch of holes blown out of your ship, and possibly killed.

Yes, most of my plans do involve shooting the bad guys, if necessary to extract myself, my loved ones, and my property from the situation at hand, as is my right under the law, and my duty as a member of civilization. No I have no problems with killing someone who has no problems killing me, raping and killing my family, then selling my stuff off for their next high or whatever.

While we may not know the exact contents of interstellar law, the civic duty would remain the same. I would not agree that capitulation is the best course of action. Doing so only encourages the bad guys to further acts and puts others in greater danger. I should hope that this is one lesson we have learned from Neville Chamberlain and WWII. It is not safe, it is not sound, and it places others in greater jeopardy. Why do people insist that it's the best option? The only one it's the best option for is the criminals!

Deepcrush wrote:I didn't know there was a law against firearms on a ship.
Is it only for Commercial vessels?

No, it's for any vessel that sails the high seas. American Flagged Vessels may have some protection from this, but I wouldn't want to push my luck, hence, I stay home...

GandalfTG wrote:You claim that the Sydney is merely a transport, not a Starship. (don't use Warship, as the Federation doesn't build warships, with the exception of the Defiant class, and they don't even acknowledge that it's a warship.) I have said that the Sydney is a Starfleet Starship. I have provided my evidence that backs up my claim. Please either a: prove my evidence is faulty, or b: provide your own evidence to the contrary. And no, "Because Graham Said So" is not a valid bit of evidence. (unless it's in Green or Yellow text. Remember, White is speculation...)

I never claimed that the Sydney class wasn't Starfleet - I pointed out that it wasn't a warship. Starfleet does build warships - they're the ships that fight wars. The Galaxy, Nebula, Excelsior, Akira, Miranda and various other classes of starship have all demonstrated the ability to go toe-to-toe with hostile alien warships, and were used in that role as a matter of course during DS9. The Sydney was used to move people around the Federation. That makes the former designs warships and the latter designa transport.

So, let's see, you have a fleet of starships that haul cargo about. You don't care about the laws except as to avoid them. Why would you not have a few cells of your orginization dedicated to piracy? We may disagree if they were likely involved in piracy, but I'm sure that you will acknowledge that they were definatly the "Bad Guys" and very capable of doing nearly anything they wanted. Now, if you had a cargo, and they wanted it, do you seriously think they wouldn't take it from you if you were unarmed? Or do you think that just because you have weapons means that you have to stand and fight? Shooting as you run away and cry for help is not only a valid tactic, but the smart thing to do!

Provide evidence of the Orion Syndicate being responsible for piracy. While they would probably invest in it if it were profitable, space-borne piracy is unlikely to be so, unlike today. The main areas of piracy are the Carribean, where there are plenty of luxury yachts around, and plenty of islands, coves, etc to hide an inflatable boat, and in narrow shipping channels such as the Malacca Straights and Gulf of Aden. Space does not have the sort of cover required to launch such an attack, which makes piracy a lot more risky.

Lursa & Bator smuggler, not pirates? Lets see, I've arranged to 'buy' an illegal object from you, I take it from your ship, then blow the crap out of your ship. I would whole heartedly call that Piracy. And if the Maquis had a tendency to concentrate on Cardassian targets is irrelevent. It is still an example of Piracy during the TNG/DS9 era, proving my point, that piracy exists no matter how rare it may well be.

Lursa and B'Etor were buying and selling illegal goods in "Firstborn" and "Past Prologue", and investing in illegal weapons research in "Generations". They're certainly criminals, but they're not pirates. The Maquis were also criminals, but again, they weren't pirates but terrorists.

The Brits do a lot of strange things that I, as an American, find incomprehensible.

The feeling's mutual Yank.

While I respect a lot of what the British Military was able to accomplish in the Falklands War, not being prepared to ship troops overseas wasn't one of them. The British Navy pressed the Canberra, a civilian cruise ship, into military service, replaced her crew, and welded pintle mounts for .50 cal MGs to her railings and shored them with sand bags. (I went looking up the Canberra for this information btw. I'm far from an expert on UK Military.) It could be argued that the Canberra at this point was no longer a civilian ship, but a (very) light military vessel. And yes, it is unheard of for civilian vessels, being vessels not under the control of the military, to enter a combat zone. Any vessel attempting to do so would either be ordered out of the area, or blown out of the water when they failed to leave. To allow an unknown vessel into a combat zone is to introduce an unknown element into the field of battle, and another threat to the fleet, which every fleet commander would find unacceptable, and rightly so.

Not only that, but if you were a civilian vessel, and you were in a combat zone as it went hot, and people start shooting at you, the very first thing you do is run away as fast as you can, not stick around until you have big gaping holes in your hull because you are neither stupid nor wish to die. This is true if you have weapons or not...

As far as I can tell, there are no ships in the current US Navy that are completly unarmed (with the exception of the floating drydock ships). Even the cargo vessels, Combat Stores Ships, Tenders, and other Auxiliary vessels are all armed in some fashion, commonly with little more than .50 cal MGs and 3" Bofors guns, but they are armed. Even the USCG Icebreakers are armed with 3" Deck Guns and MGs.

Typical armament for an RFA (Royal Fleet Auxillary - the Royal Navy's Fleet Train) is a few 20mm guns and machine guns. The basic reason is that they're not designed to enter combat - they're designed to supply the fleet with ammunition, fuel, food, and other supplies. Having to carry weapons and their ammunition would take up space needed for those supplies. Indeed, the only reason they're armed is for point-defence against inflatable assault craft, aircraft, and missiles, and the only reason they were any use at San Carlos was the terrain and the missile trap set up by the escorting warships. In space, with three dimensions and virtually no terrain to work with, and shields to keep out enemy fire, there would be no point to arming such a ship, let alone a merchantman.

I was trying to fix my PC in time to cover Seafort on the "Sydney isn't a starship" misrepresentation. I've mentioned my opinion on this topic already, but one thing I've noticed here prompts me to write this:

Gandalf - what's onscreen is what's onscreen. It doesn't matter if you (or I, or anyone) think that it's nonsensical to have an unarmed Starfleet transport or civilian freighter - we've seen them to be unarmed, therefore they are unarmed. It doesn't matter if we think that the Orions would engage in piracy - they haven't done so onscreen, so they don't. We may debate why certain ships are unarmed, but we may not say that they should be because of Orion pirates; because, according to the evidence, the Orions aren't pirates.

Now, back to the matter at hand: if you were to arm a civilian vessel, where exactly would you obtain SOTA mil-spec hardware to do so? What evidence is there that Starfleet routinely hands over its tech?

Captain Seafort wrote:

GandalfTG wrote:You claim that the Sydney is merely a transport, not a Starship. (don't use Warship, as the Federation doesn't build warships, with the exception of the Defiant class, and they don't even acknowledge that it's a warship.) I have said that the Sydney is a Starfleet Starship. I have provided my evidence that backs up my claim. Please either a: prove my evidence is faulty, or b: provide your own evidence to the contrary. And no, "Because Graham Said So" is not a valid bit of evidence. (unless it's in Green or Yellow text. Remember, White is speculation...)

I never claimed that the Sydney class wasn't Starfleet - I pointed out that it wasn't a warship. Starfleet does build warships - they're the ships that fight wars. The Galaxy, Nebula, Excelsior, Akira, Miranda and various other classes of starship have all demonstrated the ability to go toe-to-toe with hostile alien warships, and were used in that role as a matter of course during DS9. The Sydney was used to move people around the Federation. That makes the former designs warships and the latter designa transport.

If the ship is Starfleet, then it is required, by Federation Law, specifically, General Orders 6, 8, & 24, to engage in combat as necessary to protect Federation Interests. I'm sure that there are other laws that would apply, but I only have access to the General Orders. By that legal requirement, she MUST be armed, no ifs, ands, or buts.

If that's the definition you wish to use for Warship, fine. I'll stick with what's canon, thank you very much.

And again, if I'm going to arm a shuttle craft, which carries only a few passengers at most, then how could anyone in any form of good conscience, fail to arm something that carries HUNDREDS??? "It's not supposed to see hostilities" HOW DARE ANYONE TAKE THAT RISK!!! "It's only a cargo hauler" With a CREW of over 200! (speculated)

"Prevent the loss of sentient life" "prevent the loss of life" How often do we hear these sentiments expressed in different ways on the shows and in the movies? It's not possible to prevent the loss of life if you have no weapons with which to defend yourself, let alone your fellow Federation Citizenry.

So, let's see, you have a fleet of starships that haul cargo about. You don't care about the laws except as to avoid them. Why would you not have a few cells of your orginization dedicated to piracy? We may disagree if they were likely involved in piracy, but I'm sure that you will acknowledge that they were definatly the "Bad Guys" and very capable of doing nearly anything they wanted. Now, if you had a cargo, and they wanted it, do you seriously think they wouldn't take it from you if you were unarmed? Or do you think that just because you have weapons means that you have to stand and fight? Shooting as you run away and cry for help is not only a valid tactic, but the smart thing to do!

Provide evidence of the Orion Syndicate being responsible for piracy. While they would probably invest in it if it were profitable, space-borne piracy is unlikely to be so, unlike today. The main areas of piracy are the Carribean, where there are plenty of luxury yachts around, and plenty of islands, coves, etc to hide an inflatable boat, and in narrow shipping channels such as the Malacca Straights and Gulf of Aden. Space does not have the sort of cover required to launch such an attack, which makes piracy a lot more risky.

Provide evidence that they weren't. I can't, as I previously stated, provide evidence that they difinitively were involved in piracy. It's a personal opinion based upon what I've seen. I interpret things one way, you interpret them another.

As for space not having straights and bottlenecks, TNG Season 7, would beg to differ, with the episode Forces of Nature. Why were the Eco-Terrorists attacking ships in that region of space? Two reasons, the eccological reason, and because anyone who wishes to get from one side of that area to the other has to go through that area or add a significan't amount of time to their trip by going around. Sounds like the very reason why ships captains today use straights. Also sounds like a perfect place to ambush ships.

Lursa & Bator smuggler, not pirates? Lets see, I've arranged to 'buy' an illegal object from you, I take it from your ship, then blow the crap out of your ship. I would whole heartedly call that Piracy. And if the Maquis had a tendency to concentrate on Cardassian targets is irrelevent. It is still an example of Piracy during the TNG/DS9 era, proving my point, that piracy exists no matter how rare it may well be.

Lursa and B'Etor were buying and selling illegal goods in "Firstborn" and "Past Prologue", and investing in illegal weapons research in "Generations". They're certainly criminals, but they're not pirates. The Maquis were also criminals, but again, they weren't pirates but terrorists.

Sorry, but I call that kind of behavior, going around blowing up ships, especially your own courier, Piracy. You may disagree, but that's your right. And even if they aren't Pirates, they are STILL dangerous.

Maquis perform acts of piracy to pay for and support their acts of terrorism. Whatever you wish to lable them, they remain, for however long they were a group, DANGEROUS.

If there are dangers out there, then Civilians are going to want to defend themselves, not sit around waiting for Starfleet to show up, while getting shot at. By the time Starfleet arrives, they may well already be dead.

While I respect a lot of what the British Military was able to accomplish in the Falklands War, not being prepared to ship troops overseas wasn't one of them. The British Navy pressed the Canberra, a civilian cruise ship, into military service, replaced her crew, and welded pintle mounts for .50 cal MGs to her railings and shored them with sand bags. (I went looking up the Canberra for this information btw. I'm far from an expert on UK Military.) It could be argued that the Canberra at this point was no longer a civilian ship, but a (very) light military vessel. And yes, it is unheard of for civilian vessels, being vessels not under the control of the military, to enter a combat zone. Any vessel attempting to do so would either be ordered out of the area, or blown out of the water when they failed to leave. To allow an unknown vessel into a combat zone is to introduce an unknown element into the field of battle, and another threat to the fleet, which every fleet commander would find unacceptable, and rightly so.

Not only that, but if you were a civilian vessel, and you were in a combat zone as it went hot, and people start shooting at you, the very first thing you do is run away as fast as you can, not stick around until you have big gaping holes in your hull because you are neither stupid nor wish to die. This is true if you have weapons or not...

As far as I can tell, there are no ships in the current US Navy that are completly unarmed (with the exception of the floating drydock ships). Even the cargo vessels, Combat Stores Ships, Tenders, and other Auxiliary vessels are all armed in some fashion, commonly with little more than .50 cal MGs and 3" Bofors guns, but they are armed. Even the USCG Icebreakers are armed with 3" Deck Guns and MGs.

Typical armament for an RFA (Royal Fleet Auxillary - the Royal Navy's Fleet Train) is a few 20mm guns and machine guns. The basic reason is that they're not designed to enter combat - they're designed to supply the fleet with ammunition, fuel, food, and other supplies. Having to carry weapons and their ammunition would take up space needed for those supplies. Indeed, the only reason they're armed is for point-defence against inflatable assault craft, aircraft, and missiles, and the only reason they were any use at San Carlos was the terrain and the missile trap set up by the escorting warships. In space, with three dimensions and virtually no terrain to work with, and shields to keep out enemy fire, there would be no point to arming such a ship, let alone a merchantman.

Your argument supports my position, you do realize? If the threats you're facing is boarding by speedboat, then that is the threat you need to be capable of neutralizing, and a couple of Ma Duce's will make quick work of a good many small boats. This I have no problems with. I support it whole heartedly, as I have stated several times now.

If all you have is shields, I don't have to worry about taking any damage. I can shoot at you all day long, assuming I can keep up with you as you run away. It doesn't matter why I'm shooting at you. Maybe I want your stuff. Maybe I want your ship. Maybe I just want to kill you. I'm not worried, I'm NEVER going to take any damage from you unless I drop my shields and you RAM ME!

If you have even low yield weapons, you may be able to damage my ship enough that I no longer think that attacking your ship is worth it. I'll go play with someone else.

Again, this assumes civilian, not Starfleet. I am unlikely to take on any Starfleet vessel, because they are typically heavily armed, and well shielded, and I'm likely to be very dead, very soon (unless I manage to somehow run away, which is just as unlikely because they are also a frickin science vessel!)

Mikey wrote:I was trying to fix my PC in time to cover Seafort on the "Sydney isn't a starship" misrepresentation. I've mentioned my opinion on this topic already, but one thing I've noticed here prompts me to write this:

Gandalf - what's onscreen is what's onscreen. It doesn't matter if you (or I, or anyone) think that it's nonsensical to have an unarmed Starfleet transport or civilian freighter - we've seen them to be unarmed, therefore they are unarmed. It doesn't matter if we think that the Orions would engage in piracy - they haven't done so onscreen, so they don't. We may debate why certain ships are unarmed, but we may not say that they should be because of Orion pirates; because, according to the evidence, the Orions aren't pirates.

Now, back to the matter at hand: if you were to arm a civilian vessel, where exactly would you obtain SOTA mil-spec hardware to do so? What evidence is there that Starfleet routinely hands over its tech?

Yes, what's on screen is what's on screen. You can't prove that they CAN'T fire, just that we've never seen it happen. I have also never seen anything either in the shows or in the movies that indicates that civilians DON'T have weapons, or that they are banned in any way shape or form, except for a few very specific cases.

There are some things that we do know from backstage resources, but the powers that be have hardly filled in all the blanks for us, which is where sites like DITL comes in. He filled in a lot of the little blank spots for us based on his interpretations, what he remembers, and discussions he's participated in. If after this thread is said and done, he still belives that those ships should remain unarmed on his website, that's his right. I may not agree, but I WILL stand up and defend his right to be wrong, with my life if necessary.

Hmmm... now that I think about it, there are several secondary resources that state emphatically that the Orions were pirates, at the very least, during the TOS era. It's been so long since I've seen TOS that I can't say if there were any references specifically in there, but there were several books (I clearly remember my mother talking about them. she read the books quite religously), and one of the PC games published in 2001 was entitled Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates. I realize that many people wouldn't consider this canon, but then, I know a few people that don't consider ST:Ent to be canon either, nor ST:Voy.

Who the bloody hell says you have to use State Of The Art Mil-Spec weaponry on a civilian transport? It sure as hell HASN'T been me! I have repeatedly said that you need enough weaponry to face the opponents that you are most likely to run into, even if you are unlikely to ever actually run into them. Now, as for where I would get Mil-spec weaponry, if it were me, I'd prolly get them from the Orions, or the Klingons, or the Cardassians or any number of other foreign powers that care a good deal less about who they sell their weapons to. Who says I have to use Federation weapons?

I have offered numerous arguments why the Shelley and the Sydney classes should be armed. Other than Graham, I have heard no reason for Starfleet Starships to go about unarmed. I have rebutted his reasons, but have heard nothing back. He doesn't want to get involved, that's his perogative.

GandalfTG wrote:If the ship is Starfleet, then it is required, by Federation Law, specifically, General Orders 6, 8, & 24, to engage in combat as necessary to protect Federation Interests. I'm sure that there are other laws that would apply, but I only have access to the General Orders. By that legal requirement, she MUST be armed, no ifs, ands, or buts.

What are GOs 6 and 8 - they're not listed on DITL. As for GO 24, how is wiping out a planetary surface the task of a transport?

And again, if I'm going to arm a shuttle craft, which carries only a few passengers at most, then how could anyone in any form of good conscience, fail to arm something that carries HUNDREDS??? "It's not supposed to see hostilities" HOW DARE ANYONE TAKE THAT RISK!!! "It's only a cargo hauler" With a CREW of over 200! (speculated)

A ship should always be optimised for its primary role, so as to be effective as possible in that role. Arming a transport would take up valuable cargo space. It its going into a known danger zone give it an escort, don't try and make it capable of taking on enemy warships - you'll fail, and reduce its effectiveness as a transport at the same time.

"Prevent the loss of sentient life" "prevent the loss of life" How often do we hear these sentiments expressed in different ways on the shows and in the movies? It's not possible to prevent the loss of life if you have no weapons with which to defend yourself, let alone your fellow Federation Citizenry.

So the only you can save lives is by shooting at someone is it? How about evacuating those at risk, or providing food, shelter, medical supplies, etc?

Provide evidence that they weren't. I can't, as I previously stated, provide evidence that they difinitively were involved in piracy. It's a personal opinion based upon what I've seen. I interpret things one way, you interpret them another.

You've made the claim that the OS engages in piracy, therefore the burden of proof is one you.

As for space not having straights and bottlenecks, TNG Season 7, would beg to differ, with the episode Forces of Nature. Why were the Eco-Terrorists attacking ships in that region of space? Two reasons, the ecological reason, and because anyone who wishes to get from one side of that area to the other has to go through that area or add a significant amount of time to their trip by going around. Sounds like the very reason why ships captains today use straights. Also sounds like a perfect place to ambush ships.

Bottleneck point conceded. The solution is therefore to provide a military/police presence in the area to deal with said pirates, not arming merchant ships. This is what the Royal Navy does in the Caribbean, stationing a frigate or destroyer there to deal with pirates and drug-runners.

Sorry, but I call that kind of behavior, going around blowing up ships, especially your own courier, Piracy. You may disagree, but that's your right. And even if they aren't Pirates, they are STILL dangerous.

When did they blow up their own courier - you might be conflating them with Kruge in ST3.

Maquis perform acts of piracy to pay for and support their acts of terrorism. Whatever you wish to lable them, they remain, for however long they were a group, DANGEROUS.

They stole industrial replicators from DS9 (using a mole in Starfleet), in which case the problem is DS9's security, not ship armament, but most of their supplies seem to come from independent traders like Kassidy Yates.

If there are dangers out there, then Civilians are going to want to defend themselves, not sit around waiting for Starfleet to show up, while getting shot at. By the time Starfleet arrives, they may well already be dead.

If you're not prepared to take risks then stay where it's safe. The military isn't there to bail out idiots who go swaning off into known danger zones. More importantly vigiliantism demonstrates a breakdown in law and order, and poses a threat the the orderly running of society. That's by the state has a monopoly on the use of force - to prevent self-defence escalating into everybody using it as an excuse to have a pop at someone they don't like.

Your argument supports my position, you do realize? If the threats you're facing is boarding by speedboat, then that is the threat you need to be capable of neutralizing, and a couple of Ma Duce's will make quick work of a good many small boats. This I have no problems with. I support it whole heartedly, as I have stated several times now.

If all you have is shields, I don't have to worry about taking any damage. I can shoot at you all day long, assuming I can keep up with you as you run away. It doesn't matter why I'm shooting at you. Maybe I want your stuff. Maybe I want your ship. Maybe I just want to kill you. I'm not worried, I'm NEVER going to take any damage from you unless I drop my shields and you RAM ME!

Propping a GPMG on a rail or bolting a 20mm Oerlikon to the deck is relatively easy for a modern ship. For a spaceship, you also have to worry about where the power cables are going to go, how much power the weapon will draw, and whether that drain will interfere with other ship's activities. Shields, on the other hand, are necessary for basic space travel, and should be enough to protect the ship long enough to either jump to warp and/or get out a distress signal. More importantly, shooting back is only going to irritate your attackers and increase the risk to your life if you loose.

GandalfTG wrote: Yes, what's on screen is what's on screen. You can't prove that they CAN'T fire, just that we've never seen it happen. I have also never seen anything either in the shows or in the movies that indicates that civilians DON'T have weapons, or that they are banned in any way shape or form, except for a few very specific cases.

As I said above, the burden of proof is on you to prove that something you claim to exist actually exists.

Hmmm... now that I think about it, there are several secondary resources that state emphatically that the Orions were pirates, at the very least, during the TOS era. It's been so long since I've seen TOS that I can't say if there were any references specifically in there, but there were several books (I clearly remember my mother talking about them. she read the books quite religously), and one of the PC games published in 2001 was entitled Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates. I realize that many people wouldn't consider this canon, but then, I know a few people that don't consider ST:Ent to be canon either, nor ST:Voy.

Sorry - non-canon is non-canon. Whether some people consider games canon and Voyager and Enterprise not is irrelevent - Paramount's policy is that the TV series and the films are canon, and nothing else is.

Who the bloody hell says you have to use State Of The Art Mil-Spec weaponry on a civilian transport? It sure as hell HASN'T been me! I have repeatedly said that you need enough weaponry to face the opponents that you are most likely to run into, even if you are unlikely to ever actually run into them. Now, as for where I would get Mil-spec weaponry, if it were me, I'd prolly get them from the Orions, or the Klingons, or the Cardassians or any number of other foreign powers that care a good deal less about who they sell their weapons to. Who says I have to use Federation weapons?

So you come waltzing into Federation space in your privately owned ship, with your mil-spec disruptors, and what happens? You probably get arrested, and your ship impounded for being illegally armed, just as if you tried to enter a modern western country carrying an AK-47 for "self-defence".

Captain Seafort wrote:GandalfTG wrote:
Yes, what's on screen is what's on screen. You can't prove that they CAN'T fire, just that we've never seen it happen. I have also never seen anything either in the shows or in the movies that indicates that civilians DON'T have weapons, or that they are banned in any way shape or form, except for a few very specific cases.


As I said above, the burden of proof is on you to prove that something you claim to exist actually exists.

Thank you. In a debate such as this, we MAY safely assume the non-existence of something that has been shown to be absent; we may NOT assume it's existence without proof. Canon doesn't SPECIFICALLY contradict a class of stars known as "pink fops," but we can't assume their existence in-universe.[/quote]

TNG season 3, episode: The Survivors. The man, pretending to be a Federation civilian, carries an antique low yield phaser pistol (non-functional to boot... gotta respect the moxie...). He may not have been Federation, but he was pretending to be Federation.

Did he openly display the weapon?
And what was the point of having a non-functional weapon?

Yes, most of my plans do involve shooting the bad guys,

Say a gun was unavailable. Say you were carjacked in the middle of the street by a guy with a knife, would you attack him with your hands and hope for the best?
That is, in effect, a similar situation to the pirate issue. In both scenarios, the good guy is outgunned, and up against someone with superior skill in combat trying to steal something of value from them.
In either of these situations, resisting could just get you killed, while simply being passive would result in a loss, but no injury (and the pirates would probably be unlikely to take the ship, just the cargo).

I would not agree that capitulation is the best course of action. Doing so only encourages the bad guys to further acts and puts others in greater danger.

What's the point of resisting when you have no hope of victory? You're outgunned, and up against a dedicated warship with a crew who is experienced in such actions. At best, you'd just manage to annoy them.

I should hope that this is one lesson we have learned from Neville Chamberlain and WWII. It is not safe, it is not sound, and it places others in greater jeopardy. Why do people insist that it's the best option? The only one it's the best option for is the criminals!

That's hardly an accurate analogy. The unforunate merchant would not have the power, resources, or skill required to beat off the pirates. If he resists, he's screwed. He'd be killed, his ship wrecked, and his cargo taken anyway. The most he could hope to do would be to score a few hits on the hull, providing he can get through the shields.
Being passive, on the other hand, is the inteligent action. Simply beam over your cargo, and you'll likely be let go. Get home alright, put in a claim with your insurance, notify Starfleet of the pirates, and take a different route next time. You'd lose some money, but you'd survive.
As for bennefiting the pirates, that's debateable. The more ships they raid, the more attention they draw to themselves, and the more Starfleet focuses on eliminating them.

I would think that if a vessel was civilian then the captain, who owns it (If not owned by a company), has the right to equip it with whatever he sees fit to equip it with. Unless there is a law against it, i would see no problem with a freighter with a cloaking device even if you could get one. I admit i would want to investigate how the commander...aquired the device but if he has it and it was legally aquired i see no issue with it.